Digitized  by 

tine  InternetxArclnive 

in  2014 

https://archive.org/details/baptismofbelieveOObald_0 


4 


A? 


THE 

BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 

AND  THE 

Particular  Communion 

OF 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES, 

EXPLAINED  AND  VIMDICATcD. 

IN  THREE  PARTS. 

THE  FIRST — Published  origimally  is  1789; 

THE  SECOaD— In  179+ ; 

THE  THikD — An  Appssdix,  c()NTAll^l^G  Additional 
Observations  and  Argu ments,  with  Strictures  on 
several  late  publications. 

-BY  THOMAS  BALDWIN. 

This  is  the  love  of  God,  that  we  keep  his  commandmetit*.         Jo  UN 

PART  I. 
S£COyi)  EDITION,  REVISED. 

Bofton : 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  ^  Loriso,  No.  2,  Cornhuh 
1806. 


SlSTAlCT  OP  MASSMeBV3l7TS,  tO  Wit . 


BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  tenth  day  of  Serteaiber,  in 
tlie  thircy-firft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  Ma  n  n'  i  n  c;  £?  Lo  r  t  n  c,  of  the  faid  diflnft,  have  dcpof- 
ited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as 
Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  if/* :— "The  Baptifm  of  Be- 
lievers only,  and  the  Particular  Communion  of  the  Baptift  ChurcheSj 
explained  and  vindicated-  In  Thice  Pans.  The  firfi — pnbliflied  ori- 
ginuliy  in  1789  j  the  fecond— in  1794;  the  third — an  Appendix,  con- 
taining Additional  Obfervations  and  Arguments,  with  Stri£lures  on 
Icveral  late  Publications.   By  Thomas  Baj.dwin." 

In  conformity  to  the  Aft  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  A£i  for  the  encouragement  of  leurning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
■fuch  copies,  (luring  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;"  and  aHoto  an  Aft, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  fiipplementaiy  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  'An  AR  for 
the  Lncfuir;i;:;cment  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  b  ;ok>,  to  the  Auihors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned;'  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
aits  of  defigning,  engraving,  and  etching  hiflorical  and  other  prints." 

WILLIAM  S.  SIl.iW,  Clerk  ^ft/ie  Dijlria  of  Majackufttls- 


P  R  E  F  A  ,C  K 


f  HE  firft  of  thefe  Trads  was  written  while  tlie  author 
refided  in  the  State  of  New  Hampfhire,  by  the  particular 
requeft  of  the  Woodftock  Aifociation.*  Without  defign- 
ing  to  enter  the  wide  field  of  controverfy,  a  few  thoughts 
were  liaftily  collected,  rather  as  an  apology  for  the  purlieu- 
Jar  communion  of  tlie  Baptifts,  than  an  intended  attack  upon 
the  fentlments  and  practice  of  others.  The  fubltance  of 
^hat  was  then  written,  was  prefented  to  the  above  AlFoci- 
ation,  at  their  meeting  at  Marlow,  in  the  autumn  of  1788, 
and  puhliflied  the  fpring  following. 

In  1 79 1  die  Rev.  Noah  Worcejler,  paftdr  of  the  Congre- 
gational church  in  Thornton.,  publilhed  a  reply,  entitled, 
*'  A  Friendly  Letter,^'  &c.  addrelfed  to  the  author.  This 
Letter,  though  written  with  a  confiderable  degree  of  Chrif- 
tian  candour,  contained  fome  mifreprefentations  and  errors, 
•which  it  was  thought  defirable  to  have  correded.  Accord- 
ingly, in  1 794  the  fecond  Tra£t  was  prefented  to  the  public, 
in  the  form  of  a  "  R.eply  "  to  the  foregoing  Letter.  A 
fecond  edition  was  called  for  in  a  few  weeks ;  and  a  third 
was  fome  time  after  publilhed  in  Connedicut.  The  re- 
jieated  calls  for  this  work,  rendered  its  republication  necef- 
fary. 

The  controverfy  had  confiderably  fubfided,  particularly 
»n  the  fide  of  the  Baptifts,  as  very  few  tilings  had  been 
publiflied  by  them  for  the  fpace  of  ten  years ;  Uil  at  length 
Mr.  Edwards's  "  Candid  lieafons  (as  he  is  pleafed  to  call 
them)  for  renouncing  the  principles  of  the  Antipardobap- 
tifts,"  reached  this  country.  They  were  immediately  re- 
printed, and  diftributed  in  all  directions.  This  book  ac- 
quired peculiar  celebrity,  on  tlie  account  of  its  coming 
from  one  who  had  been  a  profcHed  Baptift.  It  was  fup- 
pofed,th3t  he  underllood  the T^a-f/,  wherein  our^r*i3/ Jlrengtk 
l(iy,  and  would  confequenily  be  more  hkely  to  embarrafs 
©ur  arguments  than  any  other  man. 

What  is  now  cffered  to  the  public  in  the  fcllowirg  page'=, 
as  an  Appendix,  was  at  firft  deligned  only  to  contain  re* 
marks  on  this  author.    But  finding  tlie  controverfy  renewed 


•  Compofed  of  Baptift  ehurchas  In  New  Hampfhire  and  VemKftft. 


PREFACE. 


by  our  Psdobaptift  brethren  with  uncommon  zeal,  and  ia 
fome  inftances  with  an  acrimony  whicii  but  little  becomes 
tliofe  who  profe£s  to  contend  for  the  truth,  it  was  thought 
proper  to  extend  our  obiervations  to  thole  articles  which 
form  the  "  ground  work  "  of  infant  banrilm.  The  meni- 
berfhip  of  infants,  as  founded  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifutn,  and  the  famenefs  of  the  JewiHi  and  Chriftian  churches, 
are  the  principal  data  from  which  Paedobaptifm  is  argued;- 
thefe  have  llierefore  received  particular  confideration. 

The  reader  will  perceive,  that  our  ft'ridures  on  Mr. 
Edwards  have  been  dire<Eled  to  thofe  arguments  only, 
which  he  confidercd  as  principal  in  this  dilputc.  Our 
limits  would  not  allow  us  to  attend  to  any  thing  more. 
It  has  not  been  our  defign  to  fpealc  dinifpciftfully  of  the- 
jnan  :  to  his  own  MaUer  he  muft  (land  or  fall. 

Two  Difcourl'es  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Worcefter,  have 
iilfo  received  our  animadverfions.  His  arguments  being 
in  fuhjlance  the  fame  with  thofe  of  Mr.  hd wards,  it  was 
deemed  nnnecedary  to  go  over  the  ground ,  again.  As 
iLefe  difconrfes  were  de/igned  not  only  to  llrength.en  and 
fuppoM  Pxdobaptilm,  but  to  pull  down  and  bring  into  dif^ 
repa:e  r>.e  fentiments  of  his  Baptifl  nt-igiiliours,  wlio  dwell 
peaceably  I)y  him,  we  make  no  apolog;-  for  attempting  to 
pj!  ve  h.ij  niisiiatements  and  niirreprefentations.  We  muft 
1-.C  i..Ti..i,;t-.i.)-i.vcv.»r,  to  f.iy,  wc  h.uvc  aimed  to  be  candid, 
.1.,  :  lo  U  -;:L  iiis  p^rfon  with  due  reipcot,  whiifl.  we  have 
freely  cenfured  liis  errors. 

Two  Difcourfes  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ofgood  have  alfo  been 
briefly  noticed.  Ihefe  are  written  in  the  Uodlors  ufual 
''^^yie  of  elegance  and  perfpicuity,  and  contain  feveral  very 
candid  cblervations.  r\  few  inconfiftencies  have  however 
•  been  noticed  ;  and  there  are  fome  other  things  which  we 
think  liiglily  reprehenfible,  fuch  as  his  comparing  the  Bap- 
tifl minillers  to  the  div'il !  and  charging  them  with  creeping 
into  wen's  houfes  !  &c.  (page  33.)  It  is  conceived  that  a 
man  never  creeps  into  another's  houfe,  when  he  is  lionour- 
ably  invited. 

The  whole  is  with  great  deference  fubmitted  to  a  candid 
public.  The  author  would  lincerely  unite  with  the  pious 
of  all  denominations,  in  fervent  prayer  to  Almighty  God, 
for  an  incrcafe  of  fpiritual  light,  love,  and  knowledge,  until 
error  and  prejudice  (hall  be  exterminated,  and  all  Clniilians 
1)0  of  one  heart  and  one  mind  to  forve  the  Lord  in  the  beantf 
of  holinefs. 

Doft»n,  December  Z3,  .1806. 


Contents^* 


PART  I. 

SECTION  I. 
"•^  -nnrUs  on  the  unfrirndly  ACpjifions  caft  upon  t!;e  Baptifts,  fcr 
liiuling  Communion  wi;h  other  Dr nominations — The  Gofpcl 
j^r.cliiiie  of  a  Church  and  Qu*l'fi<^^''°"  Members— 
W iih  itrifturcs  on  Bjpiif.ii,  tl 

SECTION  U. 
Thi  Irapropriety  of  ihe  Baptift  Cluirches  communicating  with 
thofc  of  other  Denominations  confuiered,  and  their  difference  in 
Sentiment  more  particularly  ]>oinied  out,  87 

SECTION  III. 

Th€  Arguments  for  free  Communion  confidcred — others  offered 
is  Vindication  of  the  Clole  Cornuiunionifts,  37 

PART  n. 

SECTION  I. 
?reliminnry  Obfervations  on  the  Subjeft  in  Difpute,  £3 

SECTION  II. 
ProfeiTcd  Believers  the  only  iii'jxiintcd  Subjects  of  Baptifm,  58 

SECTION  III. 
V\'l;c!her  John's  Bapiifm  bilonged  to  .he  Jewifli  or  ChriCian 
D.f>*nfation,  particularly  coiifidi-red,  69 

.SECTION  IV. 
The  Mode  of  Baptifni,  and  its  Connexion  with  the  Suhjefi  in 
Pifputc,  jxir'icu'.arly  confideied,  76 

■  >  S  E  C  T  I  O  N  V. 
I  hc  Mode  o'Bainiftn  fiiiiSer  il:unrnied,  from  the  Prafticeof  ilic 
ffimitivf  Ch'iPiaiis;      i  the  M;:iiijcr  in  which  i;  was  icduced 
from  Immtifion  10  .Sprinkling,  biietly  pointed  out,  g3 

SECTION  VI. 
Godly  Siacerlry, as  conneftid  vnth  e.xtein<tl  Oi)c:d'.ena;,.conGdcred,  ioi 


COS' TEN  T^. 


.SECTION  Vll. 
,  iK-lhcr  Hierch"  a-iy  Morjii.y  in  Exurnals  or  Scntimen-s;  and 
A  i.  iher  SmcLiity  of  Heart  iecurts  the  Jucl>;iucTit  frojii  llrioi  ; 
i  .ufly  coiifidtn  d, 

SECTION  ■VIII. 
\Vhciher  the  Divine  ConJurt  iow,;r;is  i:s  be  the  Rule  of  Duiy* 
K'w.irds  our  C^iriPim  Brtjhrcn,  radicr  than  God's  rcveaki 
Will  ;  britfiy  coi.iidcra:, 

SECTION'  IX. 
Oiirervaiions  on  the  Plan  oi  Comrmjiiioo  propofcd  in  tlie  '  Fricnd- 
iy  Lcttei,'  w'lih  Rcma/ks  on  icxerjl  other  Things  connefted 
with  the  Subjeft,  l^e 

SECTION  X. 
iiicvetaJ  Objections  particularly  anfwered.  The  Subjeft  concluded,  148 


APPENDIX. 

SECTION  I.  163 

SECTION  II.  The  ArgumenU  for  Infant  Memberlhip  in 

the  Golp  l  Church,  inferred  from  the  Covenant  of  Circum- 
cifion,  confidered,  17* 

SECTION  III.  Whether  the  Jewifh  and  Chriflian  Churches 

are  the  fame.    Or  whether  the  lattei  is  a  diflinft  Church,  or  a 
mere  Continuation  of  the  forrtier^  cocfidcKd,  191 

S-ECTION  IV.  Stfiaures  on  the  Rev.  Peter  Ed- 
war  us's  "  Candid  Reafons  for  renouncing  the  Principles  of 
Antipaedobaptifm,"  218 

■fcECTJON  V.  Striaures  on  Two  Difcoutfes  on  the  Perpc 

tuity  and  Provifion  of  God's  gracious  Covenant  with  Abraham 
Mnd  his  feed.  RySAMUEi  Wo  r  c  E  ste  r,  A .  M.  Pa  (lor  of 
I  lie  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem,  236 

SECTION  VI.  The  Baptifts  vindicated  from  the  Charges 

Inoaijht  aj^ainil  them  by  the  Rev.  Samue  l  WoRC  este  R,  883 

??ECTION  VII.  Striftures  on  the  Obfervations  of  the  R?v. 

Mc.  Worcester,  Dr.  Osgood;  and  others,  upon  the 
MODE  of  Jiap'ifni,  805 

SECTION!  VIII.  The  Principles  of  Open  Communion  ex- 

amWicd.    The  SukjcSi  concluded,  3J> 


Open  Communion  examined. 


SECTION  I. 

Jlcmarks  on  the  unfriendly  Afperfions  cafi  upon  the 
Baptijh^for  rcfuftng  Comniuhioniviih  other  Denom- 
inations— The  Gofpcl  Do^lrine  of  a  Church  and 
Qiialljicalion  of  the  Members — Wiih  S:riclures  on 
Buplifm. 

The  Baptift  churches  in  general  have  long 
been  blamed  for  holding  and  praftifing  what  is 
commonly  called  clofe  communion^  as  if  this  prac- 
tice were  wholly  inconliftent  with  Chrifiian  char- 
ity, or  that  muttial  forbearance  which  the  gofpel 
requires  :  and  by  fome  it  is  conlidered  as  in- 
compatible with  the  exiftence  of  grace,  and  for 
which  we  have  been  loaded  with  many  re- 
proachful names. 

We  are  charged  with  making  the  want  of  a 
little  water  only^  a  bar  to  communion  ;  and  that  we 
are  fo  fuperftitioufly  fond  of  the  watery  element, 
that  we  place  the  whole  of  our  religion  in  what 
they  call  a  mere  circumfi-ance  of  the  ordinance  of  hap- 
tifm  :  and  fome  even  affert,  that  we  hold  that 
none  can  be  faved  without  being  immerfed.  And 
that  thereby  we  put  baptifm  in  the  place  of  re-> 
deeming  blood. 

But  why  fuch  unfriendly  charges  ?  Surely 
tliey  greitly  impeach  our  dodlrinal  principles, 
and  arc  per^ctly  inconfiftent  with  our  avowed 
and  confUnt  ^r^^ 


1 2        Unfriendly  Afperfions  on  the  Baptijl,s. 


For  it  is  too  notorious  to  admit  a  plea  of  ig- 
norance,  in  any  ot  our  opponents,  that  we  con- 
fider  no  one  as  a  proper  fubjecl  of  baptifm,  who 
docs  not  profefs  repentance  towards  God,  and 
faith  in  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  ;  who  does  not, 
in  other  words,  appear  to  be  in  a  ftate  of falva- 
iion. 

Nay,  fo  far  from  making  baptifm  a  faving  or- 
dinance, w€  do  not,  we  cannot,  confider  any 
one  as  a  proper  fubje6t  of  it,  who  looks  upon  it 
in  that  light. 

But,  however,  we  defire  to  pay  a  proper  def- 
erence to  that,  as  well  as  to  all  other  of  Chrift*s 
inftitutions  ;  and  not  to  treat  it  as  though  it 
were  left  to  our  choice,  either  to  praclife  or 
omit  it  :  although  we  do  not  confider  it  as  ef- 
fentiai  to  fahaiion,  yet  we  do  think  it  effentiai  to 
the  regular  vifibiHty  of  a  gofpcl  cliurch  ;  and 
confequen'cly  to  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  j 
for  that  is  a  church  ordinance,  and  ought  never 
to  be  adminirtered  but  to  members  that  are 
in  fpecial  covenant. 

I  am  periuaded  that  the  Baptifts  are  not  the 
©nly  people  who  believe  baptifm  to  be  a  pre-re- 
5'////^/6' to  the  Lord's  fupper. 

Were  a  Turk  to  be  brought  from  Mecca  to 
America, and  fliould  here  be  convinced  of  the  im- 
pofture  ofMahon)et,  and  become  a  true  convert 
to  Chriftianity  ;.  lliould  he  innTiediately  After  at- 
tend a  Psedoba'ptift  church,  on  one  of  their  ihted 
feafons  to  celebrate  the  I^ord's  flipper  ;  and 
fhould  the  folemnity  and  beauly  of  the  ordi- 
nance at  tradl  his  mind,  and  excite  in  him  aj  cleiit 
delires  to  partake  in  it;  would  th.y  peririt 
fcim  ?  I  am  ppibaciled  ihc>  would  not.  But 
why  would  tfiey  not  rece^v^  feifti ?  Isk.becaufe 


Unfriendly  Afperftons  on  the  Baptifis.  13 


they  do  not  look  upon  him  as  a  Chriftian  ?  No, 
for  thoy  really  do.  But  do  they  not  believe 
God  has  received  him  ?  Yes,  they  do.  But  do 
they  not  believe  Chrifl  communes  with  him  //>//•- 
itually  ?  They  do.  How  can  they  then  Jhut  him 
out  ?  Doubriefs,  becaufc  they  view  him  to  be 
unbaptlzei,  and  not  a  member  of  any  church. 
Their  conducl  in  refufing  him,  would  be  con- 
liftent  with  the  tendereft  feelings  of  Chriftianity. 
Therefore  we  do  not  commune  merely  as  Chrif- 
tians,  but  as  fuch  in  a  regular,  'vifible  Jlanding. 

But  to  illuftrate  the  point  further,  fuppofe  a 
minifter  of  Chrift  was  providentially  in  one  of 
our  new  fettlements  wliere  were  a  number  ot 
inliabitants,  refpe-dlable  on  other  accounts,  but 
who  had  never  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  nor 
had  any  church  been  gathered  in  the  place— he 
is  invited  to  preach — his  labours  are  fo  far  fuc- 
cecded,  that  in  a  few  days  conliderable  numbers 
are  hopefully  brought  to  tht  knowledge  of  the 
truth — the  next  Lord's  day  they  defire  him  to 
break  bread  to  them.  What  will  he  do  ?  If  free 
communion  is  to  be  eftablifhed,  here  is  a  good 
opportunity  for  it  to  operate  in  its  fuUeft  lat- 
itude :  for  if  it  be  lawful  and  right  to  break 
bread  to  one  that  is  unbaptized,  it  may  be  to  a 
whole  fociety.  But,  however,  if  he  be  a  Pcsdo- 
baptiji  minijier,  I  prefume  he  will  not  be  guilty 
of  fuch  an  /  rregularity  :  nor  would  a  conftjient 
Baptift.  And  I  feel  fafe  to  conclude,  that  our 
Padobaptijl  brethren  would  not  blame  us  for  re- 
fufing communion  v/ith  fuch  a  fociety,  who  did 
not  fubmit  to  baptifm  in  fome  rnode  or  other, 
however  amiable  their  Chriftian  cbaraftcrs 
might  appear  in  other  refpefls. 

B 


14 


Go/pel  DoSlrine  of  a  Church. 


If  they  would  acquit  us  from  blame  in  the 
foregoing  initance,  why  ftiould  they  fault  us 
for  refufmg  communion  with  thofe  that  we 
verily  believe  have  never  been  baptized  according 
to  Chrift's  inftitution  :  for,  agreeably  to  an  an- 
cient writer,  "  They  who  are  not  rightly  bapti- 
zed, are,  doubtlels,  not  baptized  at  all."* 
Wherefore  we  conclude,  that  communion  does 
not  belong  to  Chriftians  merely  as  fuch,  but  to 
them  as  baptized  members  of  fome  gofpel 
church. 

Neither  yet  fhould  we  be  quite  fafe  to  open 
our  doors  for  communion,  to  all  who  are  in  a 
church  ftate,  and  profefs  to  be  baptized. 

Therefore,  it  will  be  necelLiry  in  the  next 
place,  to  attend  to  the  fcripture  account  of  the 
Faith  and  Order  of  a  Gofpel  Church. 

A  gofpel  church  muft  be  built  upon  a  gofpel 
plan.  If  we  candidly  look  into  the  fcriptures, 
we  fhall  eafily  perceive,  that  the  church  is  a  fo- 
tiety  of  faints,  of  faithful  men  and  women  in 
Chrift  Jefus,  that  are  joined  together  in  holy 
fellowfhip,  that  are  incorporated  into  a  vifible 
church  ftate,  and  by  agreement  meet  together 
to  carry  on  the  worfhip  of  God,  to  glorify  him, 
and  edify  one  another. 

The  church  does  not  appear  to  be  national, 
provincial,  or  parochial  ;  but  truly  congrega- 
tional. It  is  not  built  of  dead  materials,  but  of 
lively  f  ones  ;t  each  of  them  fitted  before  they 
are  laid  in  the  building,  "  fo  that  there  is  nei- 
ther hammer  nor  axe  heard  in  all  the  houfe 
while  it  is  in  building  ;"J  how  wonderful !  how 

•  Baptifnium  quiimritc  non  habeant  fine  dubio  non  liabwit.  Tti- 
tull.  de  bapiifmo,  cap.  xi.  page  230 

i  I  Pet.  ii.  5.     \  I  Kingj  vi.  7. 


Cofpcl  Dodrine  of  a  Cbiinb. 


15 


iuperb  \  and  yet  how  exad  the  model,  fo  that 
there  needed  no  alteration  to  bring  them  all  to- 
gether  with  that  exadnefs^  that  bone  comes  to 
its  bone. 

The  church  is  called  by  St.  Paul,  *•  The  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth."* 

The  gofpel  rule  gives  none  a  right  in  the 
church  of  Chrift,  but  true  believers  :  and  all 
that  enter  not  in  by  Chrift  the  door,  are  thieves  and 
robbers. 

Tiie  church  is  Chrift's  myftical  body,  which 
he  liath  loved  and  gi-ven  himfelf  for,  "  that  he 
might  fan<51:ify  and  cleanfe  it,  with  the  waflnng  of 
water  by  the  'word."'\' 

If  we  wifli  to  underftand  the  apoftolick  form 
of  a  gofpel  church,  we  muft  expect  to  find  it  in 
the  Acts  of  the  apoftles,  or  fome  of  their  writ- 
ings. The  firft  gofpel  church  that  was  gathered 
after  the  afcenfion  of  the  Mejjiab,  was  that  at 
Jerufalem,  which  is  defcribed  in  the  following 
order  :  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his 
WORD  wevj  baptized  ;  and  the  fame  day  there 
were  added  unto  them  about  three  thoufand 
fouls  :  and  they  continued Jledfajlly  in  the  apof- 
tles' do6trine  and  felloiijhip."\ 

When  Ananias,  with  Sapphira  his  wife,  came 
and  lied  to  the  Holy  Gholl,  and  pretended  they 
were  friends  to  Chrift,  wlien  they  were  not,  and 
were  both  fallen  dead  ;  great  fear  fell  upon  the 
attending  multitude.  "  And  of  the  rejl  durfi  no 
man  join  himfelf  unto  iheni."  (That  is,  fach  as  they 
were,  carnal,  hypocritical  profeffors.)  "  But 
believers  were  the  more  added  unto  the  Lord,  mul- 
titudes both  oz  men  and  women. "§    So  early 


•iTLn.  iiLij.     tEph.  V.  i6.     f  Afts  ii.  41,  41.     5  Afts  7. 


16 


Go/pel  Dodrine  of  a  Church. 


did  falfe  pretenders  try  to  get  a  place  in  the 
churcli  of  Chrift. 

This  church  at  Jerufalem  being  gathered  un- 
der the  infpiraiion  of  the  Holy  GhoJ}^  may  be  con- 
fidered  as  a  model  for  all  fucceeding  ones  ;  every 
circumftance  related  concerning  it,  difcovers  it 
to  be  a  body  of  true  believers  in  Chrift. 

The  next  church  gathered  by  the  apoftles 
was  that  at  Samaria^  which  exaclly  agrees  witli 
that  at  Jerufalem — "  When  they  helieved  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  they 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  womefi.'^j 

The  church  of  Corinth  alfo  appears  to  be  in 
the  fame  method ;  '*  Many  of  the  Corinthians 
hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized." \  The 
church  at  Ephefus  was  addrefTed  by  the  apo/lle,  as 
*'  faints  and  faithful  in  Chrift  Jefus  and  as 
ihofe  who  had  been  raifed  from  the  dead,  and 
quickened  by  fovereign  grace,  turned  from  the 
courfe  of  this  world,  delivered  from  the  fpirit 
xhit  wor/ieth  in  the  children  of  difobedience.  The 
Corinthians  "  firft  gave  their  own  felves  unto 
the  Lord,  and  unto  one  another  by  the  will  of 
God."*  And  none  can,  in  a  gofpel  fenfe,  give 
themfclvcs  up  in  church  covenant,  till  they  pre- 
vioufly  give  themfelves  to  the  Lord. 

1  think  that  no  one  that  is  indebted  to  the 
New  Teftament  for  his  knowledge  refpecling  a 
gofpel  church,  will  try  to  gainfay  the  foregoing 
deicription. 

Tlierefore  I  would  obferve,  that  if  the  fore- 
going defcription  be  a  fcriptural  rcprcfentationof 
ii  gofpel  church  ;  then  confequently,  that  church 
winch  does  not  agree  thereto,  is  not  ftriclly  upon 


«  Afti  viii.  12.     t  Ads  iviil,  8.      t  »  C^jr.  vili. 


Gcfpel  Doclrine  of  a  Church.  \  f 


the  gofpel  phin^  unlefs  it  can  be  proved,  that 
tliere  are  two  modes  of  gofpel  churches. 

That  there  may  be  churches  formed,  that  in 
many  particulars  may  rcfemble  a  gofpel  church, 
I  wifh  not  to  deny  ; — and  that  in  thofe  church- 
es there  may  be  many  real  Chriftians,  is  a  mat- 
ter I  have  no  defirc  to  fcruple  :  fo  I  have  reafon 
to  fuppofe  that  there  are  many  Chriftians,  not 
united  to  any  church. 

Again,  the  Chriftian  church  is  built  on 
Chriit's  authorif)>,  and  is  fupported  and  defended 
by  the  fame  :  He  is  the  chief  corner  Jlone^  on 
which  their  fpiritual  building  is  erecled,  "  dif- 
allowed  indeed  of  men  ;  but  chofen  of  God, 
and  precious.  Therefore,  that  church  that 
is  built  on  worldly  e/iab!ijh/ncnts,  and  depends  on 
civil  aid  for  its  fupport  and  defence,  is  not 
ftriftly  conformed  to  the  golpel  plan, 

Ezra,  who  led  the  people  out  of  Babylon,  refu- 
fed  to  a{k  aid  of  the  civil  arm,  to  aflifl;  him  againft 
the  enemies  in  the  way,  faying,  "  I  was  afliamed 
to  require  of  the  king  a  band  of  foldiers  and  liorfe- 
men,  to  help  us  againft  the  enemies  in  the  way  : 
becaufe  we  had  fpoken  to  the  king,  faying,  The 
hand  of  our  God  is  upon  all  them  for  good  that 
feek  liim  :  but  his  power  and  his  wrath  is  againft 
ail  them  that  forfake  him."* 

Chrift's  "  kingdom  is  not  of  this  %uorld  .-"f 
and  in  a  religious  fenfe  is  not  connc<!T:ed  with, 
nor  any  ways  dependent  thereon  for  its  being  or 
fupport. 

It  will  doubtlefs  be  granted,  that  there  are 
many  churches  in  the  land,  that  are  not  formed 
according  to  the  foregoing  method,  as  may  be 
made  evident,  and  will  appear  in  the  following 


Ezra  viii.  %%,     |  John  xviii.  36, 


1 8  Gofpcl  Dodrine  of  a  Church. 


particulars,  i.  e.  That  a  heart  belief,  or  favlng 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrill,  is  not  coniidered 
by  many  of  them  as  ^  pre-requfitc  to  baptifm," 
or  to  their  being  admitted  in  full  communion  1 
which  does  not  agree  with  the  truly  apoftolic 
rule.  Philip's  words  to  the  Eunuch  who  defired 
to  fubmit  himfelf  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
were,  "  If  thou  belicve/i  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayeft.*'*  Philip  was  directed  to  this  chariot  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  mull  be  conhdered  as  act- 
ing under  the  influence  of  that  through  the 
whole  tranfacfion  :  and  if  he  required  any  tiling 
more  of  the  Ethiopian  convert,  than  what  was 
nece/fary,  really  ncccffary  to  that  ordinance,  it 
would  difcover  a  degree  oi  partiality  which  few 
would  be  willing  to  admit,  conhdering  the  in- 
fluence he  afted  under.  That  this  was  not  the 
cafe  is  evident  from  St.  Paul's  words,  "  with 
the  heart  man  bcHeveth  unto  righteoufnefs,  and 
with  the  mouth  corfejion  is  made  unto  falva- 
tion.'"'\  This  heart  belief  is  the  only  Iclief  that  is 
unto  righteoufnefs,  and  this  muft  precede  acon- 
feflion  with  the  mouth,  if  not  the  confeflion 
will  be  but  a falfehood. 

Again,  Many  of  the  Pcedobaptijls  hold  the  cov- 
<Snant  made  with  Abraham,  called  by  Stephen 
"  the  covenant  of  circiancifion,"  to  be  the  covenant  of 
grace.\  From  hence  they  infer  the  right  of  in- 
i\nt  memberfhip  ;  and  confider  the  natural  feed 
of  believers  as  the  children  of  Abraham  ;  and 
on  this  ground  claim  the  fpecial  privileges  of 
the  gofpel  for  them  as  fuch. 

This  rather  differs  from  Paul's  idea,  who  tells 
us,  "  the  promife — was  not  to  AbraJyam  nor  to 
his  feed  through  the  law,  but  througli  the  right- 


*        viii,  37,    f  Rem.  i.  lo.      }  A<£i5  vii.  i. 


Go/pel  Dottrinc  of  a  Church. 


19 


eoufnefs  of  faith.  Therefore  it  is  oi' faith,  that  it 
might  be  by  grac'e,  to  the  end  the  promife  might 
be  Tare  to  all  the  feed."*  "  And  if  ye  be  Chrilt's, 
tlien  are  ye  Abraham's  feed,  and  heirs  according 
to  ihs  promife."]  Hence  we  may  infer,  that  if 
we  be  not  Chrift's,  then  we  are  not  Abraham's 
fed,  and  are  not  heirs  according  to  the  promife. 

Again,  I'hc  apoftle  P<.'.'i?r  calls  the  members  of 
tlic  Chriftian  churcli,  "  an  holy  prieft-iicod,  to 
offer  up  fpiriiual  facrifices  acceptable  to  God  by 
Jefus  Chrift  ;"|  which  no  carnal profcffor  CAXi  do  ; 
neither  can  men  in  their  natural flate,  for  fpir- 
itual  things  are  foolillincfs  to  them  ■"  but  the 
children  of  God  are  "  an  holy  nation,  a  pectdiar 
people,  to  fhew  forth  the  praifes  of  him  who  hath 
called  them  out  of  darknefs  into  his  marvellous 
light."  Can  we  by  this  dei'cription  find  the 
features  of  an  infant  in  his  natural  fiate  ?  or  do 
they  not  rather  refemble  true  believers  in  Chrift. 
But  it  is  further  added,  "  which  in  time  pail 
were  not  a  people,  but  are  new  the  people  of  God, 
'wh.xch.  had  not  obtained  w.-t'/vy,  h\^t  iiow  have  ob- 
tained mercy." 

But  how  will  this  agree  with  the  notion  of 
infants  being  born  with  an  hereditary  right  to  the 
fpecial  ordinances  of  the  goljpel  ?  If  it  be  true 
that  they  have  a  right,  then  there  is  no  time 
when  they  are  not  a  people  after  they  are  born 
into  the  world  :  and  that  they  obtained  mercy 
in  the  fame  way  that  Levi  paid  tithes,  i.  e.  in  the 
loins  of  his  father.  Upon  this  fcale,  that  parents 
convey  a  right  of  church  privileges  to  their  in- 
f ant  feed,  I  cannot  fee  why  they  do  not  hold 
their  church  privileges  by  the  fame  tenure  as 
they  hold  their  layids. 


*  Rom.  iv.  I  J— i6.     t  G;U,  iii.  19.    |  i  Pet.  il 


20  Gofpel  Doarim  of  a  Church. 


But  perhaps  it  may  bs-thouglit  I  ani  trying  to 
expofe  a  fcnthncnt  that  the  Padobaptijls  do  not 
hold,  i.  e.  that  grace  is  ejljitial  to  church  mem- 
berfhip  ;  however,  one  of  two  things  is  evident 
by  their  pra6lice,  either  ift.  That  grace  is  coH- 
vsyed  as  above  defcribed  ;  or  2d.  That  grace  is 
not  ejj'ential  to  church  memberfliip.  To  fuppofe 
the  lormer,  would  fuperfede  the  neceffity  of  re- 
generation— to  fuppofe  the  latter,  would  be  to 
lay  the  foundation  for  a  gracelcfs  church  ;  and 
would  leave  no  other  difference  between  thcrt 
and  the  world,  than  what  confifts  merely  in 
name  and  external  form. 

If  v/hat  has  been  obferved  already  from  the 
laft  will  and  teftanient  of  our  Lord  be  true,  it 
iBuft  fufficiently  appear,  that  evidences  of  grace 
are  abibluiely  nccejjury  to  the  adniiflion  of  a 
member  to  church  fellowfhip  or  fpecial  ordi- 
Kances. 

At  a  certain  time  our  Lord  inquired  of  his 
difciples,  whom  men  faid  that  he  was.  After  a 
relation  of  the  diflerent  opinions  of  others,  Pe- 
ter believingly  affirms,  *'  Thou  art  the  Christ 
THE  Son  of  I'HE  LIVING  GoD.  And  Jefus  an- 
fwered  and  faid  unto  him,  Blefled  art  thou,  Si- 
mon-barjona,  for  flejh  and  Uood  hath  not  re'veahd 
it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
And  I  fiiy  unto  thee,  thou  art  Pe^^er  ;  and  upon 
tliis  ROCK  1  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  fliall  not  prevail  againft  it."* 

Churches  in  general,  of  all  denominations, 
improve  this  declaration  as  a  promife  in  their  fa- 
vour. Bat  to  determine  tlie  propriety  of  the 
daim^  it  is  necelTary  to  confider  two  things,  ift. 


*  Matt,  xvi,  13—19. 


Go/pel  Doarim  of  a  Church.  21 


What  we  are  to  underftand  by  the  Rock.  2d. 
TJae  manner  of  the  building  upon  it. 

Now,  fhould  we  build  upon  another  rock  in- 
ftead  of  that  referred  to  by  our  Lord,  it  would 
naturally  fedude  us  from  the  promifc. 

Again,  Should  we  build  and  lay  the  true  Rock 
as  our  foundation,  but  at  the  fame  time  fhould 
not  attend  to  the  manner  of  building  as  de- 
fcribed  by  Chrift,  we  might  iiill  be  left  without 
any  jufi:  right  to  the  promile.  Therefore  I 
would  here  obferve,  that  Chriftians  in  general 
(Papifts  excepted)  acknowledge  this  rock  to  re- 
fer to  Chrift.  But  fhould  the  reader  think  I 
take  fomething  for  granted  that  is  not  proved, 
let  him  confult  the  following  fcriptures,  Ifaiah 
xx-viii.  16.  Behold,  I  lay  in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a 
ftone,  a  tried  ftone,  a  precious  corner  ftone,  a  fure 
foundation.  2  Sam.  xxi.  2.  The  Lord  is  my  rock. 
Again  in  the  3 2d  verfe,  Who  is  a  rock  fave  our 
God.  Alfo,  fee  1  Sam.  ii.  2.  Neither  is  there  any 
rock,  like  our  Gov.  Again,  1  Cor.  iii.  11.  For 
other  foundation  can  no  7)ian  lay  than  that  is  laid, 
which  is  Jesus  Chris  r.  The  apoftle  fpeaking  of 
the  houfehold  of  God,  fays.  They  are  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  apofUcs  and  prophets,  Jefus 
Chrlfi  himfclf  being  the  chief  corner  ftone  :  Eph. 
ii.  20. 

By  the  above  quotations  it  is  made  evident, 
that  this  Rock  on  which  the  church  of  Chrift  is 
built,  is  Chrift  himfelf,  who  is  tlie  "  root  and  off- 
fpriii^  of  David,  the  bright  and  the  morning  flar?* 
This  is  the  Rock  implied  in  Peter's  confeffion. 
.  Biit  let  us  obferve  in  the  next  place  the  man- 
ner of  the  building  to  be  erected  on  this  Rock. 
A  profefiion  of  faith,  in  adults,  in  order  to  their 
admifiion  to  fpecial  communion,  is  a  point  gen- 


•22 


Go/pel  Dodrine  of  a  Church. 


(!rally  acknowledged  :  but  if  this  be  the  only 
idea  that  is  to  be  taken — that  they  ftand  in  the 
aifle,  and  give  their  tacit  confent'to  the  articles 
and  covenant  read  ;  confenting  to  fubjed  tliem- 
felves  to  the  rules  of  any  particular  church  :  if 
this  be  all  that  is  pleaded  for  as  neceflary  to  the 
building  of  the  church  of  Chrift,  I  lhall  take 
leave  to  demur.  For  moft  perfons  that  have 
been  educated  in  the  theory  of  the  Chriftian 
religion  could  fubfcribe  to  this  implicit  faith  : 
but  thofe  members  that  are  fit  materials  for  this 
fpiritual  building,  make  a  confelllon  in  fubftance 
as  Peter  did  ;  and  this  fprings  from  a  Chrift  re- 
vealed in  them  ;  ^'^ fhfh  and  blood  hath  not  re- 
vealed it  unto  thee."  Without  fuch  a  revelation 
as  this,  no  perfon  can  be  a  fit  member  for  a  gof- 
pel  church  ;  neither  can  they  get  upon  this  rock 
without  it :  for  until  this  is  made  to  their  fouls, 
they  neither  know  God  nor  Jefus  Chrift  ;  for 
it  is  exprefeiy  declared  by  Chrift,  Mat.  xi.  27, 
No  man  kmweth  the  Son  but  the  Father  ;  neither 
knoweth  any  man  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
ujijomfoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him.  And  if  they 
do  not  know  Chrift,  they  are  not  his  JJ^cep  :  for 
he  fays,  John  x.  14,  I  aju  the  good  fycphcrd,  and 
know  my  fneep,  and  am  knovjn  of  mine.  Nov/  if 
they  are  not  Chrift's  fheep,  what  riglit  have  they 
in  his  fold.  Chrift  fixes  a  faving  iffae  upon 
coming  to  him,  hearing  his  fayings,  and  doing 
them  :  Mat.  vi.  47.  And  it  is  faid,  John  vi. 
44,  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father  which 
fent  me  draw  him  :  This  is  the  man  that  digs  deep 
and  lays  his  foundation  ( hv  faith  and  repentance  J 
upon  this  blefl"ed  ROCK/ 

For  the  prefent  let  us  view  the  matter  in  a 
different  light  :  if  the  divine  rule  will  admit  of 


Go/pel  Doarine  of  a  Churcfj.        -  23 


ans  unregenerate  perfon's  being  received  as  a 
proper  piember  of  a  gofpel  church,  it  \\  ill  of  i%vo  ; 
and  if  of  two,  it  will  of  ten  ;  and  fo  confequent- 
ly  there  may  be  a  whole  church  and  not  a  true 
believer  in  it  ;  but  would  any  one  dare  to  call 
fuch  a  fociety  of  people,  a  church  of  Chriil  ? 
Would  it  not  rather  refemble  a  fynago^iie  of  Sa- 
tan ?  But  perhaps  it  will  be  objecled,  that  it  is 
not  likely  fuch  an  inftance  ever  will  take  place ; 
furely  there  is  nothing  but  divine  interpojition  to 
hinder  it,  if  this  method  is  allowed  to  bo  rule- 
able. 

But  it  may  be  further  objected,  that  a  perfecl 
church  is  not  to  be  expected  in  this  imperfedt 
ftate.    To  which  I  anfwer,  the  divine  rule  re- 

I  quires  that  they  be  perfecl  :  Mat.  v.  48.   2  Cor. 

i  xiii.  11.  Heb.  xiii.  21.    The  queftion  is  not, 

I  whether,  after  all,  we  fliall  not  have  fome  hypo- 
crites, or  unregenerate  perfons  in  the  church  ;  but 
whether  we  may  knowingly  receive  fuch,  or 
otherwife  receive  them  that  give  no  evidence  to 

:  the  contrary. 

I      Now  it  will  be  readily  granted  that  the  di- 

!  vine  rule  requires  every  Chriftian  to  be  perfed. 

\  But  what  if  fome  fhould  fay,  We  do  not  expect 
Chriftians  to  be  perfect,  and  fo  ihould  take  \\h- 
erty  to  indulge  themfelves  in  Jin  ;  could  the  di- 
vine rule  be  plead  in  their  favour  ?  Would  it  not 

'  rather  ftare  them  in  the  face  ?  Equally  fo  does 
the  gojpel  rule  every  carnal  and  hypocritical  pro- 

But  it  may  be  further  objected  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  perfon  to  attend  to  all  the  exter- 
nals of  religion,  as  means  which  God  lias  ap- 
pointed for  their  converlion.  To  Avhich  I  an- 
fwer, it  is  the  duty  of  every  rational  creature 


24  Gdfpel  Doarinc  of  a  Church. 


immediately  to  love  God,  and  that  perfedly  as  Ga- 
•briel  does  ;  for  without  a  principle  of  real  love  to 
God,  tlie  finner  cannot  perform  any  C'hriftian 
duty.  Short  of  this,  his  duties  are  like  a  dead 
corpfe  without  a  fpirit  :  For  the  end  of  the  com- 
I7ia7idmcnt  is  charity  out  of  a  pure  heart :  1  I'im.  i.  .5. 

If  the  gofpel  direfts  the  finner  to  a  progref- 
live  ufe  of  jncavs  or  ordinances,  in  order  to  his 
converfton,  then  it  does  not  require  him  imme- 
diately to  believe,  or  to  exercife  evangelical  re- 
pentance :  means  always  precede  the  end  for 
which  they  were  defigned.  But  is  it  not  plain 
that  every  duty  which  the  law  or  gofpel  requires 
of  any  creature,  it  requires  it  to  be  done  from 
a  principle  of  fupreme  love  to  God  ;  and  with- 
out that,  all  his  pretenfions  to  duty  are  but 
hypocrify.  Prayer,  or  reading  of  God's  word, 
attending  to  the  word  preached,  and  fpccial  or- 
dinances (in  an  orderly  way)  are  duties  held  up 
before  every  perfon  :  but  they  are  required  to 
attend  them  with  penitent  hearts.  If  the  hnncr 
attempts  to  pray  with  a  heart  of  impenitency 
and  unbelief,  he  does  but  deceive  himfelf  and 
mock  God  :  for  his  motives  can)iot  fpring  from 
a  higher  fviirce  than  that  which  rules  his  heart, 
which  is fclflove.  If  he  attends  divine  fervice, 
and  imagines  he  has  been  worfliipping  God,  he 
doQS  hut  deceive  hinfelf :  for  they  that  ucorflnp 
God,  worfhip  him  in  fpirit  and  in  truth  ;  whilft  thiS; 
infcription  might  be  juftly  written  upon  his 
moft  refined  afts  of  devoficn.  To  the  unknown 
God.  Should  he  be  I'prinklcd  from  the  bap- 
tifmal  lavcr,  or  immerfed  in  Jordan's  fwelling 
flood,  it  would  avail  him  nothing  without  a  neNv; 
heart.  Should  he  come  to  the  facrcd  table  o£ 
our  Lord,  and  receive  the  outward  elements. 


Go/pel  Do^lrine  of  a  Church.  25 

yet  ftill  he  does  not  commune  with  Chriji  ;  for 
Chhjl  is  light,  and  he  is  darknefs,  and  they  have 
no  communion  together. 

That  the  proclamation  of  the  gofpel  is  to  be 
made  in  the  ears  of  Tinners,  will  be  readily  grant- 
ed ;  and  wherever  it  comes,  it  makes  a  demand 
for  the  linner  immediately  to  furrender  his  heart. 
His  refudil  is  criminal,  and  lays  him  under  con- 
devination  :  John  iii.  1 8.  But  that  the  gofpel  in- 
vites impenitents,  while  fuch,  to  partake  of  its 
fpecial  ordinances,  I  choofe  rather  to  deny  ;  for 
unto  the  wicked  God  faith.  What  hafl  thou  to  do  to 
declare  yny  flatutes,  or  that  thou  JJmddtfi  take  my 
covenant  in  thy  mouth  ?  Pial.  l.  16.  But  it  may 
be  po/Iible  that  fome  may  objed,  that  I  hereby 
excufe  the  finner  from  attempting  any  duty,  be- 
caufe  he  has  not  love  to  God  :  I  am  far  from 
making  excufes  for  impenitents,  but  would 
rather  fliow  them  their  inexcufiblenefs.  Should 
the  queftion  be  alked  me.  Whether  it  be  the 
duty  of  a  finner  to  pray,  I  fhould  readily  an- 
fwer,  Yes  ;  and  add,  that  he  muft  pray  in  faith  ; 
for  whatfoever  is  not  of  faith  is  fvi  :  Rom.  xiv.  23. 
And  without  faith  it  is  imp'ffible  to  piccfe  God :  Heb. 
xi.  6.  How  then  Jhall  they  call  on  him  in  whoin  they 
have  not  believed  :  Rom.  x.  14.  I  can  fee  no 
valuable  end  anlwered  to  the  Redeemer's  caufe, 
or  to  the  fouls  of  men,  either  by  urging  or  re- 
ciiving  unregenerate  fmners  into  the  church.  If 
they  can  be  perfuaded  that  they  are  doitig  fome- 
thing  that  is  acceptable  to  God  as  the  matter  of 
their  duty,  this  may  afford  their  confciences  a 
temporary  relief,  and  may  be  the  means  of  their 
delaying  to  embrace  that  which  alone  can  prove 
the  falvation  of  their  fouls. 


c 


2G  Co/pel  Do^rine  of  a  Church. 

Should  one  of  the  fervants  of  Chrift  be  called 
to  viiit  a  dying  perfon,  on  entering  the  room 
fliould  difcover  that  </6>^//>wasjuft  ready  to  receive 
him  in  his  icy  arms — that  he  was  pail  hope  of  re- 
covery. The  crifts  is  important — a  few  minutes 
will  decide  his  cafe  for  eternity  !  The  dying  man 
fixes  ghaftly  eyes  upon  him,  as  a  mqfier  in  Ifrael, 
and  expects  fome  directions  from  him,  while 
with  a  faultering  tongue  he  thus  relates  his  fad 
cafe  J  I  am  a  poor  undone  finner,  juji  going  into  eter- 
nity, and  have  no  evidence  of  an  interefl  in  Chrifi  ! 
What  Jhall  I  DO  ?  Will  the  faithful  minifter  now 
tell  him,  he  muft  attend  the  ufe  of  means,  as 
God's  appointment  for  his  converfion  ?  Will  he 
direft  him  to  receive  haptifm,  or  to  join  to  the 
church,  or  receive  the  facred  fupper  ?  all  which 
he  may  do  and  yet  be  damned  ;  or  will  he  not 
rather  adopt  St.  Paul's  direftions  to  the  jailer, 
Believe  on  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi,  and  thou  fhalt  he 
faved  :  Acts  xvi.  31.  And  tell  him,  if  he  believ- 
eth  not,  he  Jhall  die  in  his  fins  :  John  viii.  24.  It 
will  undoubtedly  be  granted,  that  the  laft  men- 
tioned is  fafeft  for  the  dying  man  ;  if  fo,  it  is 
alfo  fafeft  for  living  men  ;  for  living  men  are 
all  dying  men  !  and  we  know  not  which  will 
die  firfl,  either  \\\^  fick  or  the  well  I  Therefore, 
we  ought  ever  to  give  fuch  dlre(5tions  to  tinners 
at  all  times,  as  would  be  fafe  to  give  them  when 
on  a  dying  bed. 

Having  taken  this  brief  furvey  of  the  gofpel 
relative  to  the  charader  of  God's  pro- 
fefiing  people,  and  the  churches  of  our  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift,  v/e  find  this  to  be  the  account  : 
That  thofe  w]\o  had  been  fo  taught  as  to  under- 
ftand  the  doctrine  of  the  crofs,  and  fo  learned  of 
the  Father  a:>  to  come  to  the  Son,  immediately 


Communicating  with  ether  Denominations.  27 


manifcfted  the'yr  faith  by  their  works  of  obedi- 
ence, in  fubniittirg  themlelves  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm.  After  thus  publickly  giving  theni- 
felves  up  to  the  Lord,  "  they  gave  themfelves 
to  one  another  by  the  will  of  God,"  or  accord- 
ing to  his  will.  Then  they  broke  bread  and 
continued  in  fellowfhip. 

But  we  have  no  account  of  any  one's  beliezrng 
before  taught,  "  for  how  lhall  they  hear  without 
a  preacher  ?"  Nor  of  any  one's  being  baptized 
before  he  believed,  (or  profefled  to  believe.)  Nor 
of  any  that  came  to  the  fa cred /upper  before  they 
were  baptized.  We  then  believe  it  to  be  the 
apoftolick  order,  to  baptize  none  till  they  profefs 
their  faith  in  Chrift  ;  and  that  till  then,  they 
cannot  be  confidercd  as  qualified  members  for  a 
gofpel  church,  nor  be  received  into  their  fei- 
lowfhip  at  the  Lord's  table.  Iherefore,  before 
we  are  blamed  too  much,  let  a  different  line  of 
conduft  be  proved  from  the  writings  of  the 
evangelifis  or  apcflles,  and  it  will  be  our  happinefs 
if  we  are  wrong,  to  be  cont-inced,  that  we  may 
have  opportunity  to  reform. 

But  that  our  reafon  for  refufing  communion 
with  other  denominations,  may  more  fully  ap- 
pear, let  us  go  on  to  confider  the  following 
things  : 


SECTION  II. 

The  Impropriety  of  the  Bapiifv  Churches  comtnunicating 
with  thofe  cf  other  Dencivinations  confidered,  and 
their  difference  in  Sentiment  more  particularly 
pointed  out. 

The  Baptift  churches  believe,  that  no  perfon 
can  be  a  difciple  of  Chrift,  that  is  not  capable  of 
felf-denial ;  for  the  Author  of  our  religion  has 


28  Impropriety  of  Baptijl  Churches 


faid,  "  Whofoever  he  be  of  you  that  forfakeih 
not  all  that  he  hath,  he  cannot  be  my  dijciple  : 
Luke  xiv.  33."  "  Let  him  deny  himfe/fznd  take 
up  his  daily  crofs  and  follow  me  :  Luke  ix.  23." 
And  if  he  be  not  a  d'lfciple^  he  cannot  be  confid- 
ered  a  proper  fubjed:  of  fpecial  ordinances. 

We  believe  in  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptifm. 

ift.  That  this  one  Lord  is  the  woman's  seed, 
the  Immanuel,  born  of  the  virgin,  the  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  and  Zion's  King,  a  Leader  and 
Commander  of  his  people,  the  great  Pattern  and 
Example  for  all  true  Believers. 

2d.  One  Faith  ;  that  faith  that  works  by  love 
and  purifies  the  heart  ;  which  is  the  only  faith 
of  God's  elect,  and  which  alone  can  give  a  right 
to  fpecial  ordinances  ;  for  without  it,  it  is  impoffi- 
ble  to  pleafe  God.  And  that  this  o?ie  faith,  is 
particularly  in  each  qualified  fubjeft,  and  cannot 
give  a  right  to  any  but  thofe  that  have  it. 

Sd.  One  Baptifn  ;  that  this  one  baptifm  is  an 
Immerfion  in  water,  in  the  name  of  the  triune 
God  ;  which  is  to  be  continued  until  Chrift's 
fecond  coming. 

Should  any  fuppofe  this  one  baptifm  to  be  the 
baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofi  and  fire,  Ipoken  of  by 
John  Baptifi  and  our  Saviour,  I  111  all  take  leave 
to  diflTent  from  their  opinion,  and  give  fome 
reafon  for  my  own. 

The  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  was  fpoken  of 
by  Chrift  and  his  harbinger  as  that  which  had 
not  then  taken  place. 

I  think  any  one  would  take  fingular  freedom 
to  fay,  that  there  were  then  no  Chriftians  who  had 
experienced  the  bleffings  of  grace  in  an  ordina- 
ry converfion  ;  if  it  be  not  fojthis  confecjucnce 


Comniunicatw^  laitb  other  Dcncmimiicns.  29 


nmft  follow,  that  thofe  whom  Chrift  had  chofen, 
fome  of  whom  he  had  fent  forth  to  teach  and 
do  miracles,  w^ere  ignorant  of  the  fpiritualily  of 
religion,  and  were  ftill  in  their  fins. 

Again,  further,  if  the  baptifm  of  the  HolyGhcJi 
be  the  one  intended,  it  would  exclude  water  bap- 
tifm in  every  mode  :  For  we  can  as  eafily  con- 
ceive of  t%vo  Lords  as  of  i%vo  baptifms  referred 
to  one  inftitution. 

The  doflrine  of  baptifms  mentioned  by  the 
apoftle,  Heb.  vi.  2.  has  no  reference  to  the  gof- 
pel  inftitution  of  baptifm  ;  but  is  the  fame 
Greek  word  that  is  tranllated  wajhings  in  another 
chapter  of  the  fame  epiftle,  Heb.  ix.  10.  There 
is  a  negation  fixed  to  thefe  baptifms,  and  they 
were  to  be  left,  becaufe  they  were  law  ceremonies, 
and  not  go/pel  mjlitidlons. 

But  here  will  a  queftion  arife.  What  are  we  to 
underftand  by  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  and 
fire  ?  fpoken  of  by  John,  Matt.  iii.  11.  and  by 
Chrift,  Acls  i.  5.  John's  words  are,  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  ;  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I, 
whofe  flioes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear  ;  he  fhall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghift  and fre."  Chrift's 
words  are,  "  And  being  aflembied  he  command- 
ed that  they  fiaould  not  depart  from  Jerufalem, 
but  wait  for  (he  promife  of  the  Father  ;  which, 
faith  he,  ye  have  heard  from  m^e,  for  John  truly 
baptized  with  water,  but  ye  ftiall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  not  many  days  hence." 
Doubtlefs  thefe,  at  this  time,  had  as  great  a 
meafure  of  the  Spirit,  as  Chriftians  in  general 
have,  and  yet  were  not  baptized  with  the  Holy 
GhoJi. 

c2 


30  Impropriety  of  BapilJ}  Cburchti 

But  the  explanation  of  the  foregoing,  we 
nieet  with  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  chapter§» 
foon  after  Chrift's  afcenfion,  "  They  were  all 
with  one  accord  in  one  place,  and  fuddenly 
there  came  a  found  from  heaven,  as  of  a  mighty 
rufhlng  wind,  and  it  filled  ail  the  houfe  where 
they  WTre  fitting  :  and  there  appeared  junto 
them  cloveii  tongues^  like  as  of  Jire.,  and  it  fat  upon 
each  of  them,  and  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Gbofi,  and  began  to  fpeak  ivifb  other  ionguesy 
as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance  :  Acts  ii.  1^ 
2,3. 

Here  is  the  Holy  Ghoft  and  fire  that  was 
mentioned.  For  Jefus  was  now  glorified,  and 
the  Holy  Ghoft  according  to  his  promife  given. 
I  think  it  is  very  evident,  that  the  baptifm  of  the 
Holy  Gbofi  and  fire  did  not  rcfpecl  the  ordinary 
influence  of  God's  Spirit,  either  in  the  conver- 
fi.on  of  finners,  or  in  its  confirming  influences  on 
his  people  :  But  muft  refpecl  the  extraordinary 
and  miracidous  gifts  beftowed  on  the  apoftles  and 
otbcrs,  for  the  confirmation  of  the  gofpel  ;  fuch. 
as  the  gifts  of  tongues,  healing,  prophefying,  &c. 

But  as  thefe  obfervations  may  differ  from  the 
general  opinion,  I  muft  therefore  be  a  little 
more  particular.  Will  any  perfon  dare  to  fay, 
that  thofe  believers  at  Samaria,  whom  Philip  bap- 
tized, were  not  true  converts  ?  If  they  were 
not,  then  baptized  a  number  of  unqual'fied 

fubjeds,  that  were  ftr angers  to  the  love  of  God. 
If  they  were  true  converts,  I  think  my  pbferva- 
tion  muft  ftand  ;  for  it  is  further  obferved  of 
them,  that  "  when  the  apoftles  that  were  at 
Jerufalem,  had  heard  that  Samaria  had  received 
the  word  of  Cod,  they  fent  Peter  and  John  unto 
them,  who  prayed  for  them,  that  they  might 


Commumcaibrg  'with  other  Dcnminaticrs .    S 1 


receive  the  Holy  Ghojft,  (for  as  yet  he  was  fajlen 
upon  7ioTie  of  them  ;  only  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  ot  the  Lord  Jefus.)  Ihen  laid  they 
their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy 
Gbojl ;"  Ads  viii.  14,  \6,  16.  Ihe  fame  idea  is 
further  iilullrated  by  St.  Paul,  who,  when  "  l>e 
came  to  Ephejus,  found  certain  difeiplss^'*  and 
"  he  faid  unto  them.  Have  ye  received  the  Hciy 
Gh'Ji Jince ye  believed  P"  Their  acfwer  was,  "  We 
have  not  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy 
Ghoft  :"  Acts  xix.  1,  2 — 6.  The  apoftle  it 
feems  prefumed,  that  if  they  were  difciples,  they 
were  baptized  ;  therefore  did  not  inquire, 
whether  they  were  baptized,  but  unto  zuhat  they 
were  luipized.  "  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his 
ha  fids  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghoft  came  on  them, 
and  tliey  fpake  with  tcn^ues  and prophefied." 

Although  they  had  never  heard  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft  in  thefe  miraculous  operations,  yet  they 
were  difciples  and  believers. 

Therefore  I  think  I  have  a  right  to  this  con- 
clufion,  that  the  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
ceafed  when  thefe  miraculous  gifts  ceafed ;  and 
;that  the  one  baptifm  referred  to,  is  water  baptifm  : 
yea,  even  this  baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghofi  never  fu- 
.perfeded  or  deftroyed  the  necefiity  of  water 
,baptf>n,  as  an  inilitution  of  Chrift.  See  it  exem- 
plified. Ads  X.  44 — 48. 

But  let  none  conclude  I  mean  to  deny  that 
\Cliriftians  have  any  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghoft 
^n  this  day  ;  I  do  not  :  neither  do  I  believe  they 
'Were  without  them  when  Chrift  was  upon  earth, 
.or  even  before  he  came.  And  yet  thefe  extra- 
ordinary influences  were  not  given,  for  Jefus 
was  not  yet  glorified.  Therefore  the  inftitution  of 
baptiioa  ftands  unlhaken  upon  the  firm  bafis  of 


32  Impropriety  of  Baptijl  Churches 


a  divine  command,  which  will  continue  it  until  the 
end  of  time,  notwithftanding  many  ancient  and 
modern  corrupters,  of  whatever  name,  or  fed. 

The  Baptifts  not  only  believe  that  this  one 
baptifm  is  an  inftitution  of  Chrift,  but  that  it  is 
ever  to  be  adminiftered  in  one  mode,  and  to  one 
kind  of  fuhjeds.  Our  opponents  fuppofe  (at  leaft 
many  of  them)  that  it  may  be  adminiftered 
upon  a  profellion  of  faith,  or  without  it  ;  ei- 
ther by  immerfion  oxfprinkltng.  They  acknowl- 
edge immerfion  to  believers  to  be  lawful  bap- 
tifm ;  could  we,  with  a  good  confcience,  allow 
the  fame  of  infant  fprinkling,  much  of  our  dif- 
pute  would  be  at  an  end.  "  But  our  fixed  and 
avowed  perfualion  will  not  permit  us  to  allow, 
that  infani  fprinkling,  though  performed  with  the 
grcateft  folemnity,  is  worthy  of  the  name.  Con- 
fequently,  though  they,  confiftently  with  their 
own  principles,  may  receive  us  to  communion 
among  them,  yet  we  cannot  admit  them  in  fel- 
lowfhip  with  us  at  the  Lord's  table,  without 
contraditling  our  profeffed  fentiments.  For  it 
appears  to  us,  on  the  moft  deliberate  inquiry, 
that  immerfion  is  not  a  mere  circumfiance,  or  a 
mode  of  baptifm,  but  elTential  to  the  ordinance  : 
fo  that  in  our  judgment,  he  who  is  not  immer- 
fed  is  not  baptized.  This  is  one  of  our  reafons 
for  refuiing  communion  to  our  Psedobaptift 
brethren,  whom  in  many  refpecls,  we  highly 
efteem,  and  towards  whom  we  think  it  our  duty 
to  cultivate  the  raoft  cordial  affeftion."* 

We  really  believe  one  mode  of  baptifm  to  be 
of  divine  appointment  j  all  others  but  human  ir,' 
mention. 


Booth's  Apol.  p.  14. 


Communicating  with  other  Denominations.  33 

But  is  this  ordinance  of  our  Lord  left  in  fuch 
cbfcurity,  that  an  honeft  mind  mnft  be  always  at 
a  lofs  how  to  pradife  it  ?  To  plead  this,  is  to 
impeach  Chrift,  that  he  has  not  been  as  faithful  in 
his  own  hcife  as  a  fcn^  as  Mofes  was  as  a fcrvant : 
Heb.  iii.  5,  6. 

But  from  whence  does  it  appear  that  baptifm  - 
is  a  duty  ?  Not  from  any  moral  precept,  but  from 
a  pofitivc  inflitution.  "  All  poiitive  inflitutions 
depend  entirely  upon  the  uuU!  \nd  declaration  of 
the  perfon  who  inftitutes  thciii,  with  rcipecl  to 
the  end  and  defign  of  them  ;  and  alfothedue 
manner  of  performing  them."*  But  are  not 
pofittve  Inflitutions  as  plain  as  moral  precepts  ?  If  fo, 
why  do  we  blame  the  finner  for  not  complying 
with  one,  and  excufe  the  Chriftian  for  negleding 
the  other  ? 

But  it  is  faid,  they  do  not  negleft  it,  but  only 
pradife  it  in  a  different  way  !  But  is  this  differ- 
ent way  a  divine  inftitution,  or  fomething  fubfti- 
tuted  in  its  room  ?  If  the  former,  we  may  pre- 
fume  that  it  is  made  plain  in  the  word,  as  it  is 
not  deligned  for  men  of  fcience  only,  but  for  iir.- 
learned  men  and  ivcmen,  and  for  babes  in  Chrift. 

The  inftance  recorded  in  fcripture  concern- 
ing Saul  w  ho  was  fent  to  deftroy  Amalek,  with 
the  prophet's  reply  to  him  at  his  return,  may 
ferve  as  a fpecimen  to  difcover  the  nature  and  ef- 
feils  Qi  difobedience.  The  command  was 
tive,  and  was  in  part  obeyed  ;  but  "  the  beft  of 
the  flieep  and  oxen  were  faved  alive."  Saul 
was  very  confident  he  had  performed  the  will 
of  the  Lord,  and  thus  addrefl'ed  Samuel  :  "  Bleff- 
ed  be  thou  of  the  Lord  ;  I  have  performed  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord  :^  1  Sam.  xv.  18, 


*  Letters  to  Bifliop  Hoadlcy. 


34  Impropriety  of  Baptijl  Churches 


And  doubtlefs  5<7z// would  have  carried  his  point, 
h:\d  not  an  infpired  prophet  withftood  him.  It 
is  likely  Saul  had  fome  fpecious  pretences  for  his 
conducl  :  he  might  flatter  himfelf  that  thefe 
fheep  and  oxen  might  be  a  large  faving  of  the 
property  of  Ifrael  ;  and  that  to  fave  them  to  do 
facrifce  to  the  Lord,  was  a  laudable  dcfign  ;  he 
did  not  pretend  he  had  the  leail  regard  to  felf 
in  the  whole  affair,  but  was  now  prudently- 
taking  care  that  Jeboz-ah's  altar  might  be  loaded 
with  the  richeft  facrinces.  But  the  prophet 
foon  gave  him  to  underftand,  that  obedience  to 
divine  appointments,  fuch  as  depend  entirely  on 
an  exprefs  command,  is  better  in  the  fight  of 
God  than  hecatombs  of  bleeding  beafts,  or 
clouds  of  fmoaking  incenfe  :  For  rebellion  is  as 
the  fin  of  witchcraft^  and  fhihbornnefs  is  as  iniquity 
and  idolatry  :  1  Sam.  xi.  25. 

When  the  children  of  Ifrael  were  returned 
from  their  captivity,  they  gathered  themfelves 
to  Ezra  the  fcribe,  to  be  intruded  in  their  duty 
out  of  the  law,  "  And  they  found  written  in 
■the  law  which  the  Lord  had  commanded  by 
Mofes,  that  the  children  of  Ifrael  fhould  dwell 
in  booths  in  the  feaft  of  the  feventh  month  : 
Neh.  viii.  44."  This  was  a  pofitive  inflitutiony 
and  juftly  claimed  the  obedience  of  all  Ifrael.  But 
notwithftanding  this,  it  had  not  been  kept  in  the 
inftituted  way  from  the  days  of  Jc/^.v/?,  until  the 
days  of  Nehemiah.  Was  the  inftitution  to 
blame  for  their  negleft,  or  mull:  the  blame  fall 
on  them  ?  On  them,  furely.  But  migiit  not 
fome  plnufible  objedions  be  made  againft  refor- 
mation  ?  What  if  fome  had  afked  the  queiUon, 
"  If  this  be  fo,  why  did  none  of  the  learned 
fathers  find  it  out  ?  Were  not  Samuel^  Davids  Sol- 


Communicating  with  other  Denominations.  3S 

onion,  Jehojhaphat,  Afa,  Jofiah  and  Hezekiah,  all 
good  men  ?  and  they  did  not  keep  this  feaft  in 
booths."  What  if  others  had  faid,  "  We  do  not 
underftand  the  word  booths  in  fuch  a  point  of 
light  :  a  booth  means  a  fort  of  tent,  the  defign  of 
which  is  to  fcreen  us  from  the  fcorching  beams 
of  the  fun,  and  defend  us  from  the  injuries  of 
the  weather  ;  and  as  our  houfes  anfwer  thefe 
purpofes,  we  efteem  it  lawful  for  us  to  eat  this 
feaft  in  them." 

But  what  would  all  thefe  objeftions,  and 
many  more  that  might  be  made,  avail  in  the 
mind  of  a  man  who  was  defirous  for  reforma- 
tion, and  had  his  eyes  open  to  read  in  the  law 
of  the  Lord  ?  "  It  was  found  zaritten  in  the  law 
of  the  Lord  therefore  it  was  a  fufficient  rea- 
fon  for  every  one  to  engage  in  reformation, 
whofe  heart  was  brought  to  love  tiie  law  of  his 
God. 

We  profefs  to  take  the  word  of  God  for  a 
perfeft  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  if  fo,  we  are 
not  to  follow  the  opinions  of  the  bcft  of  men, 
though  ever  fo  learned  and  great,  any  further 
than  they  follow  Chrift,  or  walk  according  to 
his  inftitutions.  "  To  the  law  and  the  teftimo- 
ny,"  this  is  our.  only  guide  in  matters  of  religion. 
And  from  hence  we  find,  that  baptifm  is  Tipo/i- 
tive  injVuution  of  Chrift,  left  in  his  church  for  the 
benefit  of  his  people  ;  concerning  which  we 
can  know  nothing  but  from  the  revealed  will  of 
the  great  Lawgiver.  Had  the  baptifm  of  un- 
believers been  intended,  it  would  have  been  de- 
clared :  if  it  were  either  exprejfed  or  implied,  the 
apojiles  muft  have  underftood  it,  and  their 
//a*  would  have  difcovered  it  ;  ofwhicli  nothing 
certain  has  ever  yet  been  made  to  appear. ' 


36      Impropriety  of  Baptljl  Churches,  ^c. 


If  fprinkling  had  been  the  divinely  appointed 
mode,  it '  would  be  rational  to  expecfl  to  find  it 
exemplified  in  fcripture  ;  and  that  inftead  of 
their  going  to  the  water,  that  they  brought  the 
water  to  them.  "  It  behoves  us  therefore,  well 
to  confider  the  rule  which  our  Lord  has  given 
relating  to  this  ordinance."*  "  Becaufe  we  can 
have  no  other  direction  in  thefe  fort  of  duties, 
unlefs  we  have  recourfe  to  mere  invention, 
which  makes  them  our  own  in/lit ut ions,  and 
not  the  inftitutions  of  him  who  iiril  appointed 
them."t 

Therefore  we  find,  after  tlie  mofl:  deliberate 
inquiry,  that  there  is  fuch  a  real  difference  in 
our  fentiments  and  practice,  that  what  the  Pcs- 
dohaptijls  believe  and  pradife  for  baptifm,  is  fo 
effentially  different  from  Chrift's  appointment, 
that  in  our  opinion  it  cannot  be  baptifm. 

Then  furely  we  mull  bo  the  moft  inconfijlcnt 
fet  of  Chriftians  in  the  world,  to  hold  up  the  ne- 
ccffity  of  baptifm  by  our  profejfion,  and  yet  when 
we  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  praSiicaliy  deny  if, 
by  receiving  thofe  to  our  communion  whom  we 
do  not  hefitate  to  tell  the  world,  we  look  upon  as 
unbaptized  perfons  ;  and  fo  for  the  lake  of  hold- 
ing free  communion,  we  mufl  '*  build  again  the 
things  that  we  have  deflroyed,  and  thereby  make 
ourfelves  tranfgrejfyrs,"  for  once  renouncing 
them. 

But  let  us  go  on  to  fee,  what  fuch  a  praclice 
is  built  upon. 


*  Booth's  Apol.  p.  J4.      I  B.  Hoadtey's  p.  ac  p.  3. 


Arguments  for  free  Communion  confideredi  37 


SECTION  III. 

The  Arguments for free  Communion  confidered — others 
offered  in  Vindication  of  the  Clofe  Communionifls. 

Should  all  that  has  been  obferved  in  the  pre- 
ceding pages  be  aflented  to,  yet  this  queftion 
may  be  put  :  Cannot  the  Baptift  churches  com- 
miinicate  with  the  Padobaptijis,  where  they  obtain 
l^itiofaclion  that  they  are  Chrijiians,  and  2xe  fin- 
cere  ?  Let  us  try  the  matter.  The  brother  pro- 
pofnig  to  commune  informs  the  church  to 
whom  he  applies,  that  he  has  reafon  to  fuppofe 
he  was  baptized  in  his  infancy,  and  has  never 
feen  it  to  be  his  duty  to  be  baptized  fmce.  Did 
he  but  fee  it  to  be  duty,  he  would  cordially 
comply  with  it ;  but  as  he  does  not,  defu'es  to 
partake  with  them  as  he  is. 

What  can  the  church  do  ?  Muft  the  man  be 
debarred  from  doing  his  duty  in  one  inftance, 
becaufe  he  cannot  fee  it  in  another  ?  Or  will 
they  drag  him  into  the  water ^  againft  the  light  oi 
his  own  confcience  ?  Surely  not  the  latter. 
Some  reafons  muft  be  given,  or  the  man  ought 
to  be  received.  But  what  is  the  ground  of  "his 
application  ?  Why,  he  is  a  Chrijiian,  and  \s  fin- 
cere,  and  he  is  baptized  to  himfelf,  or  he  confiders 
himfelf  fo. 

That  he  is  a  Chrifliany  the  church  may  he  fully 
fatisficd  ;  and  that  he  may  he  fncere,  they  do  not 
pretend  to  deny  ;  hnt  Jincerityis  not  the  term  of 
communion  :  but  being  conformed  to  the  apof- 
tles'  dodrine,  and  continuing  fieadfafily  therein  : 
Ads  ii.  42. 

D 


5S  Arguments  far  free  Cmmunion  confidcred. 


If  fincerity  be  the  term  of  communion^  why  might 
not  Paul  have  been  admitted  when  he  was  a 
member  in  good  ftanding  in  the  Jewip  church  ? 
But  it  may  be  objected  that  he  perfecuted  the 
faints  of  Jefus  :  it  is  true  ;  but  who  can  challenge 
his  fincerity  from  his  own  declaration  ?  /  verily 
thought  with  niyfelf  that  I  ought  to  do  jnany  things 
contrary  to  the  name  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth  :  A6ts 
xxvi.  9.  And  whatever  we  praftife  that  is  not 
according  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  is  contrary  there- 
to, although  we  be  ever  fo  fincere  in  doing  it. 

May  we  not  fuppofe  that  fome  of  all  de- 
nominations are  Jincere,  although  ever  fo  errone- 
ous ?  But  to  illuftrate  the  idea,  fuppofe  one  who 
had  been  educated  a  Roman  Catholic,  Ihould 
become  a  true  convert,  fo  as  to  fatisfy  a  judg- 
ment of  charity  :  he  alks  for  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  but  at  the  fame  time  lets  the 
church  know,  that  he  could  not,  with  a  good 
confcience,  receive  the  euj>.  Although  he  has 
renounced  the  church  of  Rome,  the  mother  of 
abo??iir?atia?is,  yet  he  would  not  rejed  any  thing 
that  appears  to  him  to  be  right,  becaufe  that 
church  held  the  fame  ;  he  now  acts  honeftly, 
according  to  the  beft  light  he  has.  Would  any 
Proteftant  church  commune  with  him  ?  Surely 
if  they  mean  to  praclife  free  ccmmionon  they 
^  ©ught  to.  The  man  is  allowed  indeed  to  be  in 
an  crror^  but  then  it  is  of  that  kind  that  is  called 
"  non-effential,  7wi  fundamental^  merely  circwrjlan- 
tial" — "  the  Jlrong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities 
(he  weak" — he  muft  be  received. 
At  their  nc?;t  communion  feafon,  there  comes 
a  difciplc  of  George  Fax,  who  denies  water  baptifn 
in  every  mode,  but  he  is  convinced  of  one 
error  in  his  part)-,  refpe<5ting  the  facred  fupper^ 


Arguments  for  free  Comimmicn  coiifidcrcd.  39 


and  is  now  defirous  to  tcftify  his  obedience  to 
this  injlltutlon.  Free  cor,min:lon  is  too  liberal  in  its 
fentiments  to  reject  him  ;  his  plea  is  ftncerity, 
which  no  one  has  a  right  to  fcruple,  without 
falling  under  that  fevere  reproof,  "  Who  art 
thou  that  judgeft  another  naan's  fervant  ?  to  his 
oivn  mafter  he  ftands  or  falls."  Neither  of  the 
foregoing  inftances  can  be  more  inconfiflcnt, 
than  for  a  Bciptiji  church  to  commune  with  a 
Psedobaptift,  whilft  they  hold  him  to  be  unbap- 
tized.  And  the  arguments  that  will  vindicate 
the  conduct  of  one,  will  fcrve  the  fame  purpofe 
for  the  other. 

But  it  may  be  profitable  here  to  have  recourfe 
to  the  fcripture  doctrine  in  this  matter,  and  if 
that  approves  of  fuch  a  line  of  conduct,  we 
ought  to  drop  the  difpute  ;  if  not,  to  contend 
earnefdy  for  this  article  of  the  Chriftian  faith. 

It  muft  be  acknoy/ledged,  that  there  is  a  con- 
nexion between  the  two  poiitive  inftitutions 
of  Chrift,  and  that  one  of  them  muft  be  prior  to 
the  other.  For  a  man  cannot  partake  of  the 
Lord's  fupper,  and  be  baptized,  at  the  fame 
time. 

It  is  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  thefe  appoint- 
ments, with  regard  to  their  order  and  connex- 
ion, depend  as  much  on  the  fovereign  will  and 
pleafure  of  the  Lawgiver,  as  the  appointments 
themfelves.  "  Here  then  the  queftion  is.  Has 
our  fovereign  Lord  revealed  his  vvdll,  in  regard 
to  this  matter  ?  To  the  law  and  to  the  teftimo- 
ny."  How  readeft  thou  ?  "  To  determine  the 
query,  we  may  firft  confider  the  order  of  time 
in  whicli  the  two  pofitive  inftitutions  of  the 
New  Teftament  were  appointed  :  That  baptifm 
was  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  that  fubmiflion  was 


40    Arguments  for  free  Comnmnion  csnfidered. 

required,  and  that  it  was  adminiftered  to  mul- 
titudes  before  the  facred  fupper  was  heard  of 
or  had  exiftcnce,  are  undeniable  facts."*  John 
Baptift,  the  apoftles,  and  even  the  Son  of  God 
incarnate,  all  pra<5i:ically  recommended  baptifm, 
at  a  time  when  it  would  have  been  impious  to 
have  eaten  bread  and  drank  v.'ine,  as  an  ordi- 
nance of  divine  worfliip.  Baptifm  therefore 
Iiad  the  priority  in  point  of  inftitution. 

Let  us  next  confider  the  order  of  ivords  in  the 
great  commiffion.  When  a  rifen  Saviour  faid  to 
his  difciples,  "  all  power  is  given  me  in  heav- 
en and  in  earth  ;  go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, BAPTIZING  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  teaching 
them  to  OBSERVE  all  things  whatsoever  I 
HAVE  COMMANDED  YOU  :"  Mat.  xxviii.  18,  19, 
20.  The  firft  article  of  the  commiffion  is,  to 
teach,  then — v/hat  ?  To  baptize,  or  to  adjiuntfier 
the  Lord^ s fupper  ?  let  every  confcience  judge. 

Let  us  next  confider  the  apoftolic  practice.  It 
is  very  evident  the  apoftles  underftood  our  Lord 
in  the  fenfe  for  which  we  plead,  and  pracHfed  ac- 
cordingly. For  when  a  number  were  "  pricked 
in  their  heart,  and  cried.  Men  and  brethren, 
what  fliall  we  do  ?  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them. 
Repent,  Tindi^' — what,  break  bread  ?  Nay,  verily  ; 
but  "  be  baptized  every  one  of  you."  The 
willing  converts  followed  his  diredlion.  "  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  bap- 
tized." 

The  next  ftep  was,  to  join  themfelves  to  the 
church,  and  afterwards  they  united  in  breaking 
of  bread.    This  is  apoftolic  order,  and  cannot 


•  Booth's  Apol.  p.  31. 


Arguments  for  free  Comviunion  confidered.  41 

be  denied,  without  contradiding  the  cracks  of 
truth. 

When  Chrift  has  thus  revealed  his  will,  for 
us  to  difpute  it,  is  rebellion.  It  rather  becomes 
us,  with  humility,  to  rejoice  that  he  hath  made 
the  path  of  our  duty  fo  plain. 

If  what  has  already  been  obferved  ftands  con- 
fiftent  with  fcripture,  a  contrary  pradlice  cannot 
be  proved  from  the  word ;  unlefs  it  be  like  a  lead- 
en rule,  that  will  apply  to  any  thing.  Then  if  this 
be  the  order  in  which  the  two  gofpel  inilitu- 
tions  Hand,  we  fliall  do  well  to  confider,  who 
hath  given  us  a  difpenfmg  power,  to  fet  afide 
one  which  claims  a  prior  right  on  the  convert's 
obedience,  for  the  fake  of  indulging  him  in 
another. 

INIofes  had  no  right  to  alter  a  fingle  pin  in  the 
tabernacle^  but  was  admoniflied  to  make  all  things 
according  to  the  pattern  Ihown  in  tlie  mount. 
And  whofoever  inverts  the  order  of  Chrift's 
appointments,  muft  be  confidered  as  didating  to 

INflNlTE  WISDOM. 

The  next  thing  that  I  fliall  confider  is,  the 
arguments  drawn  from  St.  Paul's  ivords  to  the 
Romans  :  Receive  ye  one  another  as  Chri/i  alfo  hath 
received  us  :  Rom.  xi.  7.  Hence  our  opponents 
argue,  that  fuch  as  God  has  received,  we  have 
reafon  to  fuppofe  he  communes  with.  We  can- 
not, therefore,  in  the  exercii'e  of  a  Chriftian 
tern. per,  refufe  to  receive  them.  But  is  this  re- 
ceiving limited  to  communicating  at  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble ?  Is  there  no  other  way  for  us  to  manifeft 
our  love  to  our  brethren  of  other  denomina- 
tions, but  for  us  pradically  to  give  up  what  we 
confcientioufly  believe  to  be  the  order  of  God's 
houfe  ?  Before  wc  make  fuch  a  mQveineiit,  it 
D  2 


42    4rgunmis  for  fres  Cgmmumm  confidercd. 

"vvHl  be  proper  to  inquire  into  the  apoflle's  mean- 
ing ;  and  inftead  of  giving  my  own  thoughts 
pn  tlie  text,  I  choofe  rather  to  tranfcribe  a  paf- 
i'age  from  a  Paedobaptift  writer,^  quoted  by  Mr. 
BooTH,t  who,  dlffenting  from  what  our  oppo- 
nents infer,  obferves-— "  This  difference  is  glar- 
ingly forced  and  wide,  difcovering  their  igno- 
rance of  the  true  meaning  and  defign  of  the 
text,  who  make  it.  The  apoflle  is  not  here 
fpeaking  of  admiffion  to  church  memberfhip  at 
all  ;  nor  does  he  confider  thofe  to  whom  he 
writes  in  the  precife  light  of  the  church  univer- 
fal,  but  as  members  of  a  particular  church  or 
body,  among  whom  there  was  fome  difference 
of  opinion  about  meats,  &c.  which  was  like  to 
break  their  communing  together,  as  is  plain 
from  the  preceding  chapter.  The  apoftle  fets. 
himfelf  to  prevent  this,  and  to  accomplifh  a 
reconciliation  ?  And  after  a  number  of  healing 
things,  he  concludes  with  thefe  words — Receive 
ye  one  another ;  that  is,  ye  who  are  faints  at 
Rome,  who  have  agreed  to  v/alk  together  in" 
the  commandments  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord 
Jefas  ;  ye  who  are  profefledly  united  in  church 
communion,  receive  ye  one  another  in  love,  as 
becometh  faints  united  in  one  body  for  mutual 
benefit.  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens  :  watch 
over  and  admonifli  one  another  in  love,  not- 
withftanding  fome  diiference  in  fentiments 
among  you,  as  to  the  eating  certain  meats,  and 
regarding  certain  days  ;  but  let  not  that  differ- 
ence make  any  breach  in  your  communion  to- 
gether as  a  church  of  Chrifl.  But  let  the  flrong 
bear  with  thofe  that  are  weak  ;  and  the  weak 


*  Smith's  Compend.  Acc.  of  the  form  and  order  of  the  chBrch,  p. 
119.  t  Apology,  p.  85. 


Arguments  for  free  Ccnwrunion  conjidercd,  4? 

not  be  oifipnded  v/ith  the  liberty  of  the  ftrong. 
Judge  n(ft  one  another  uncharitably  ;  but  let 
brotherly  love  continue.  This  is  preciiely  the 
:ipoftle's  meaning,  as  will  appear  to  thole  who 
look  impartially  into  the  connexion  of  his  argu- 
ment, and  by  no  means  ferves  the  purpofe  for 
wliich  the  objcclors  bring  it."  There  is  an 
elTential  difference  between  their  eating  or  not 
eating  meats  in  the  apoftolic  times,  and  our  be- 
ing baptized  or  noi  baptized,  prior  to  commun- 
ion at  the  Lord's  table.  The  latter  being  a 
Iblsmn  inftitution  of  divine  worfliip  :  but  can 
this  be  alferted  of  the  former  ?  Surely  it  muft  be 
ftraining  things  beyond  bounds,  to  let  thefe  ob- 
folete,  antiquated  rites  in  contrail  with  a  golpel 
inftitution. 

Another  argument  made  ufe  of  in  favour  of 
free  communion  is,  that  if  they  are  God's  children, 
be  communes  with  them  ;  and  if  fo,  it  would 
be  fuperftition  for  any  to  refufe  to  come  to  the 
facred  table  with  them.  But  it  is  not  what 
God  can  or  does  do,  but  his  revealed  will,  that 
is  the  rule  of  our  duty.  Many  have  left  tlje 
word  of  God  out  of  a  partial  regard  to  the 
charafters  of  gi'eat  and  good  men.  But  it  may 
be  remembered,  that  when  the  Lord  fent  the 
prophet  from  Judah  to  cry  againft  the  altar  at 
Bethel,  that  he  was  forbid  to  eat  bread  or  drink 
■v/<iter,  in  that  place.  For  a  time  he  kept  clofe 
\o  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  profpered.  But 
3^ter  he  was  gone,  an  old  prophet  purfued  after 
him,  and  finally  prev^ed  with  him  to  return. 
Had  he  appeared  as  an  open  enemy,  it  is  not  Hke^ 
\y  the  prophet  would  have  heard  to  him  ;  but 
tbis  is  the  way  in  which  he  prevailed  with  hjm, 
by  telling  him—/  alfo  am  a  prophit  ;  and  that  an 


44    Arguments  for  free  Commumon  conftdered. 

angd fpakc  unto  mo  to  bring  thee  back.  But  though 
a  prophet,  or  an  angel  from  heaven  had  fpoken 
unto  him,  he  had  no  warrant  to  leave  the  word 
of  God  ;  and  for  his  difobedience  was  foon  flain 
of  a  lion.* 

Another  argument  made  ufe  of  by  thofe  who 
plead  for  open  communion  is,  that  we  can  join  in 
pi-ayer,  either  in  our  families  or  in  public,  with 
Psedobaptifts,  or  can  hear  them  preach  occa- 
fionally,  and  yet,  after  ail,  cannot  come  to  the 
Lord's  table  with  them.  It  is  true,  and  perhaps 
fome  caufe  can  be  flicwn  for  our  conduft. 
We  efteem  it  not  only  hrjiful,  but  to  be  our  in- 
difpcnfable  duty,  to  manifeft  xiur  love  to  all  that 
love  the  I^ord,  in  every  way  that  is  not  incon- 
fiftent  with  a  revelation  of  the  divine  will  in 
fome  other  rcfpec^s. 

I  prefume  it  will  be  a  given  point,  that  cir- 
cunicifion  was  abfolutely  neceilary  for  every 
male,  in  order  to  partake  at  the  pafchal  fupper  ; 
this  was  not  the  effeft  of  any  bigoted  notion 
in  the  Ifraelites,  but  by  a  pofitive  command 
of  Jehovah  :  Exod.  xii.  48.  Had  Enoch,  who 
walked  with  God  as  a  faint,  and  who,  as  a 
prophet,  foretold  the  coming  of  Chrift  to  judg- 
ment;  or  Noah,  who  was  an  heir  of  the  righteouf- 
nefs  of  faith,  as  well  as  a  preacher  of  it  ;  or 
Melchifedek,  that  illuftrious  type  of  the  great 
Meffiah  ;  had  thefe  been  contemporary  with  Mo- 
fes,  and  fojourners  in  the  fame  wildernefs,  they 
could  not  have  been  admitted  to  communion  in 
the  Ifraelitifti  church,  without  fubrnitting  to 
circumcifion.  Yet  had  Enoch  been  in  the  camp 
of  Ifrael  when  Korah  and  his  company  fnutinied, 
and  had  been  difpofed  to  have  given  the  reb- 


*  Sec  this  account,  i  Kings,  xiii. 


Arguments  for  free  Conmun'ion  ccnftdcred.  45 


els  a  lecture  on  the  fecond  coming  of  Chrifi:, 
I  cannot  fuppofe  his  offered  fervice  would  have 
been  rejected  by  Mofes,  merely  becaufe  he  was 
not  circumcifed.  Had  Noah  been  prefent  when 
the  tabernacle  was  erected,  and  had  been  dif- 
pofed  to  have  given  the  people  a  fermon  on 
the  future  incarnatlcn  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  rightcoufncfs  of  faith,  of  which  that  facred 
ftrufture  had  a  typical  regard,  I  cannot  but 
think  they  would  have  given  him  a  hearing ; 
and  yet  the  pofttive  Iwjj  of  Jehovah  would 
have  forbidden  their  partaking  at  the  pafchal 
fcaft. 

Our  Lord,  though  he  warned  his  hearers 
againft  tJie  pride  and  hypocrify,  the  unbelief 
and  covetoufnefs  of  the"  Pharifees  and  Scribes, 
yet  exhorted  the  people  to  regard  the  truths 
they  delivered  :  Mat.  xxiii.  1,  2,  3.  Yet 
would  any  affcrt  that  our  Lord  would  have 
admitted  thefe  ecclefiaftics  to  communion  in 
fpecial  ordinances  ?  When  the  beloved  difci- 
ple  faid,  "  Mafter,  we  faw  one  cafting  out 
devils  in  thy  name,  and  we  forbid  him,  be- 
caufe he  followed  not  with  us  Jefus  anfwer- 
ed,  *'  Forbid  him  not  ;  for  he  that  is  not 
againft  us,  is  for  us  :"  Luke  ix.  49,  50.  From 
hence  it  appears,  that  we  ought  to  encourage 
thofe  who  are  fighting  againft  the  common 
enemy,  and  are  propagating  the  common  truth, 
although  we  cannot  commune  in  fpecial  ordi- 
nances together. 

Another  argument  which  has  been  addreffed 
with  conftderabie  effect,  to  the  feelings  and  paf. 
fions  of  Chriftians,  is,  tlie  confequences  that 
will  follow  upon  clofe  communion,  i.  c.  that  if 
Chriftians  cannot  communicate  together  in  this 


46    Arguments  for  free  Qomrmnian  confidersd' 


world,  how  can  they  expeft  to  enjoy  fellow- 
fliip  together  in  heaven. 

This  is  fomcthing  very  frightful  indeed  I 
that  there  muft  be  two  heavens  for  feparate 
fpirits  ! 

But  this  may  be  anfwered  by  attending  to 
a  few  things.  Who  would  dare  to  anathe- 
matiize  all  thofe  who  deny  the  ufe  of  both 
ordinances  ?  Or,  who  will  venture  to  fay,  that 
among  the  different  kindreds,  tongues  and 
tribes,  who  will  appear  in  that  illuftrious 
throng,  at  the  decifive  hour,  there  will  be 
none  who  never  faw  nor  praclifed  the  facred 
ordinances  in  any  form  ?  Or,  who  will  afBrm, 
that  none  who  are  excommunicated  perfons 
win  ever  be  admitted  into  heaven  ? 

And  yet  upon  gofpel  principles,  it  would 
be  unlawful  to  commune  with  them  while 
Tuch. 

But  thefe  objedlions  muft  appear  of  no 
weight  to  the  candid.*  For  where  is  there  a 
church  of  any  denomination  that  there  is  not 
fuch  difference  of  opinion  in  fome  things 
among  them,  as  at  fome  times  to  produce 
trials,  and  at  others,  lharp  contentions  ?  And 
yet  may  we  not  fuppofe  that  one  heaven  will 
hold  them  all  after  death  ?  Yes  ;  death,  the 
great  leveller,  will  put  an  end  to  our  party 
difputes,  and  bring  the  duft  of  contending 
Chriflians  to  refl  in  fweet  agreement  in  the 
grave  !  equally  fo  will  the  fiery  trial,  which 
lliall  burn  up  all  the  hay,  wood  and  fixihhlc  from 
the  foul,  bring  the  fpirits  of  all  good  men  to 
dwell  in  a  ftatc  of  uninterrupted  felicity. 

The  lafti  thing  that  I  flnll  confider,  which  is 
brought  as  a  plea  for  open  communion,  is,  that 


Arguments  for  free  Communion  confidercd.  47 


the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm  is  left  in  fuch 
darknefs  and  ambiguity,  both  as  to  the  fubjects 
and  mode,  that  nothing  certain  can  be  deter- 
mined. Therefore  it  calls  for  our  charity  to- 
wards thofe  who  differ  from  us.  It  may  be  re- 
membered, that  when  the  talents  were  com- 
mitted to  the  fervants  to  occupy,  the  two  that 
improved  made  no  complaints  ;  the  other  had 
a  hard  mafter,  an  aujlere  man  ;  a  great  many 
difficulties  ftood  in  the  way  of  duty.  That  the 
baptifm  of  infants  is  not  made  plain,  we  fliall 
not  deny  :  but,  that  believers  were  baptized,  is 
as  plain  as  words  can  make  it  ;  and  fliines 
through  the  New  Teflamcnt  as  if  written  with 
a  fun-beam.  If  fprinkling  be  the  mode  intended 
in  the  New  Tefbament,  we  muft  concede  to  the 
propofition  that  is  not  made  plain.  It  would 
feem  like  an  ambiguous  affair  indeed,  to  relate, 
that  both  the  adminijirator  and  the  perfon  bap- 
tized,  went  down  into  the  water,  and  came  up  out  of 
it  again,  when  all  that  was  to  be  done,  was  only 
to  fprinkle  a  little  water  ra  the  face.  Yea,  to 
read  in  the  volume  of  infpiration  that  multi- 
tudes were  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan  ;  and 
that  they  were  baptized  in  Enon,  bccaufe  there  was 
much  water  there^  when  a  few  bafons  of  water 
would  have  ferved  the  purpofe  equally  well. 
This  would  feem  indeed  to  be  fo  dark,  that  com- 
mon fenfe  mufl  have  been  at  a  lof^,  how  to  have 
reconciled  this  ancient  account  with  modern  prac- 
ticCy  had  it  not  been  that  fome  gentlemen  of 
great  invention,  have  lent  their  friendly  aid, 
and  call  peculiar  light  upon  the  fubjecl.  They 
have  informed  the  world,  that  the  large  quanti- 
ty of  water  was  neceffary  for  the  ufe  of  the 
camels  and  liTes  the  i^eopk-  rode  upon  ;  whereas 


48    Arguments  for  free  Communion  conjtdercd. 


the  only  thing  that  the  fcriptures  bring,  into 
view,  is  the  conveniency/of  baptizing.  That  the 
Padobaptijh  confider  it  as  not  made  plain  in 
fcripture  ;  or,  that  it  is  left  to  be  pradifed  in- 
differently, as  circumftances  may  require,  is 
abundantly  evident  from  their  conduct ;  for 
many  of  them  adminifter  both  ways  ;  fometimes 
in  the  meeting-houfe,  and  then  in  a  river.  What 
flrange  amphibious  Chriflians  ! 

If  the  Greek  verb  baptize  has  not  been  rightly 
explained,  we  have  no  reafon  to  fuppofe  it  ever 
will  be. 

And  this  evidence  we  find  in  our  favour  from 
the  various  expofitors  upon  it,  that  all  the  Bap- 
tifts  agree,  that  the  word  in  its  firft  or  primary 
fenfe,  fignifies  to  dip  or  plunge,  and  only  in  a 
fecondary  and  confequential  fenfe,  to  ivajh* 
Many  of  the  Pxdobaptifts  allow  the  firft  fenfe 
of  the  word  to  be  the  fame  as  we  do  :t  and  if 
others  deny  it,  yet  ftiil  the  evidence  ftands  in 
our  fovour  ;  for  none  would  give  it  up  againft 
«  themfelves,  if  they  were  not  obliged  in  juftice 
to  do  it.  A  number  of  ancient,  learned  expofi- 
tors upon  the  Greek  allow  this  fenfe. J  The  mat- 
ter is  out  of  difpute  in  our  minds  ;  and  we  re- 
ally think,  that  the  combination  of  ivords  and 
cireumjiances  recorded  in  the  New  Teftament, 
have  made  it  as  plain  as  any  others  could,  fo 
that  "  he  may  run  that  readeth."  So  plain 
that  "  no  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool,  needs 
err  therein."    Yet  many  who  have  been  cducat- 

•  Dodor  Gill's  anfwcr  to  Mr.  Dickgnfon,  p.  90. 

f  Sec  the  learned  Henry,  on  Rom.  vi.  4.  Alfo  quoted  by  Mr. 
Fofter,  Dr.  Doddridge,  Mr.  Uurlci'tt,  Dr.  Maclainc,  Dr.  Wuli,  and  Mr. 
Poole. 

\  Scapula,  Sclirevelius,  Budreus,  Calvin,  Bcza;  Ctilauboii,  Cirociuii, 
&c.  quoled  With  their  words  by  Dr.  Gill. 


Brief  Addrefs  to  the  Baptifi  Churches.  49 


ed  in  the  theory  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  from 
their  early  days,  excufe  themfelves  from  this 
duty,  becaufe  they  cannot  fee  it.  But  it  is  fo 
plain  that  an  Ethiopian  Eunuch^  who,  but  a  few- 
minutes  before,  did  not  underjland  -what  he  read, 
was  foon  inftrufted  in  the  weighty  concerns  of 
his  foul,  and  believed  in  the  truth  loith  all  his 
heart  ;  which  immediately  led  him  to  come 
down  from  his  chariot,  and  go  down  ififo  the 
water.  Surely  the  Chriftian  who  boafts  fuperior 
advantages  above  an  Ethiopian,  muft  Hand  ad- 
moniflied  by  this  example.  If  Ananias  of  Da- 
jnafcus,  was  to  meet  fuch  an  indifferent  brother, 
would  he  not  addrefs  him  in  his  admonifhing 
language,  "  Why  tarrieft  thou  ?  Arife  and  be 
baptized."  Would  not  the  ready  obedience  of 
the  jailor,  who  "  arofe  the  faftie  hour  of  the 
night,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his  ftraight- 
way,"  reprove  fuch  a  delaying  brother  ? 

Could  not  Lydia  leave  the  river fide,  where 
the  Lord  firfb  opened  her  heart,  before  ftie  gave 
proof  of  her  faith,  by  fubmitting  to  this  ordi- 
nance ?  Then  let  the  doubting  lift  their  eyes  and 
fee  what  a  cloud  of  witnefles  we  are  furrounded 
with,  and  lay  afide  every  weight,  and  run  the 
felf-denying  race  ;  and  fee  that  they  do  not 
make  void  the  commandments  of  God,  through 
their  tradition. 

Having  thus  gone  through  with  what  I  pro- 
pofed,  I  fliall  clofe  the  whole  by  a  brief  addrefs 
to  the  Baptift  Churches. 

Bear  Brethren, 

It  was  at  the  requeft  of  a  number  of  you  that 
I  attempted  to  write  ;  and  if  I  fhould  fail  of 
anfwering  your  expedations,  yet  ftill  I  have  the 

£ 


50      Brief  Addrefs  to  the  Baptijl  Churches.. 


teftlmony  of  my  confcience,  to  the  reftitude  of 
my  inteniion  ;  and  my  inaDiiity  you  will  tender- 
ly impeach.  You  will  find  a  great  difference  in 
th  )fe  who  objed  againftour  order,  with  regard 
to  chfe  communion.  Some,  no  doubt,  are  to  be 
confidered  in  the  light  of  thofe  we  meet  with, 
Ezra  iv.  2,  who  requefted  of  thofe  Jewifti  fa- 
thers, to  build  with  them  j  their  plea  was,  "  We 
feek  your  God  as  ye  do  ;  and  we  do  facrifice  to 
him  fince  the  day  of  Efar-baddon,  king  of  Af- 
fur."  Thefe  were  not  admitted,  for  they  were 
enemies,  and  only  fought  to  overthrow  thole 
who  were  building. 

But  you  will  meet  with  others,  who,  joying, 
and  beholding  your  order,  would  gladly  take 
privileges  with  you  ;  who  Hand  high  in  your 
efteem  as  friends  to  the  caufe  of  truth  ;  thefe 
demand  the  tendereft  expreflions  of  your  love. 
Yet  it  is  never  to  be  expreffed  in  a  way  contrary 
to  God's  revealed  will.  Therefore,  if  our  pro* 
feffion  be  confiftent  with  the  word  of  truth,  let 
our  praftice  be  fo  too.  Let  thofe  who  open 
their  doors  for  free  communion  confider,  wheth- 
er they  do  not  give  more  liberty  than  the  fcrip- 
tures  do,  by  fitting  down  at  the  holy  table 
with  thofe  whom  they  look  upon  as  unbaptized^ 
They  will  do  well  to  fearch  for  a  precedent  for 
their  condud  in  the  word  of  God.  I  am  per- 
fuaded,  if  they  were  to  afk  the  Chriftian  world! 
in  general,  they  would  readily  join  with  the 
apo'ilG  and  fay,  "  We  have  nofuch  cuftom,  nor 
the  churches  of  God'*  that  were  before  us,  as  to< 
receive  unbaptized  perfons  to  communicate 
with  us. 

Let  thofe  who  praAife  according  to  their  jrt-o- 
felTion,  never  be  apamed  of  the  crofs  of  Chrill  f 


Brief  Addrefs  to  the  Eaptijl  Churches.  51 


but  remember  that  it  is  enough  that  the  difcipte 
be  as  his  Lord,  and  the  fervanthe  as  his  mafter. 
Remember  the  apoille's  words  to  the  Theffaloni- 
ans,  "  Now  we  command  you,  in  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  that  ye  withdi-aw  your- 
felves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  difor- 
derly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  re- 
ceived of  us  :"  2  Their,  iii.  6.  It  may  be  your 
duty  to  withdraw  from  them  that  you  confider 
as  not  conformed  to  the  tradition  of  the  apof- 
ties ;  fo  far,  as  not  to  partake  together  at  the 
Lord's  table. 

But  I  fhall  clofe  with  the  woi'ds  of  the  belov- 
ed Paul  -to  the  Corinthians  :  "  Now  I  befeech 
you,  brethren,  by  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  that  ye  all  fpeak  the  fame  thing,  and 
that  there  be  no  divifions  among  you  ;  but  that 
ye  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  fame 
mind,  and  in  the  fame  judgment     1  Cor.  i.  10. 


THE 

BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 

AND  THE 

Particular  Communion 

OF 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES, 

F.XPLAINED  AND  VINDICATED. 

IN  THREE  PARTS. 

THE  FIRST — Published  ORIGINALLY  in  1789; 
THE  SECOND— In  1794; 

THE  THIRD— An  Appendix,  containing  Additional 
Observations  and  Arguments,  with  Strictures  on 
several  late  publications. 



BY  THOMAS  BALDWIN. 
PART  II. 

fOVJlTH  EDITION,  REVISED. 


Bofton  : 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  y  Loring,  No,  2,  Cornhill. 
1806. 


DisTRtcT  OF  MAssAcwnrrty  to  wit: 


BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  fevcnth  day  of  Auguft,  in 
the  thiny-firft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  M,\  N  n  i  n"  o  Lo  r  i  N  c,  of  the  faid  diftrift,  have  depof- 
ited  in  this  office  the  title  cf  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  ihey  claim  a» 
Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit : — "  The  Baptifiii  of  Be- 
lievers only,  and  the.  Particular  Communion  of  the  Baptift  Churches, 
explained  and  vindicated.  In  Three  Parts.  The  firfl — pub  11  fhed  ori- 
ginally in  1789;  the  fecond — in  1794;  the  third — an  Appendix,  con- 
taining Additional  Obfervations  and  Arguments,  with  Striftures  on 
feveral  iate  Publications.    By  Thomas  Baldwin." 

In  conformity  lo  the  Aflof  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  Aft  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of 
fuch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  and  alfoto  an  Aft, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplemeiiury  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  '  An  Aft  for 
the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  ot  fuch  copies,  during  jhe 
times  therein  mentioned ;'  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
arts  of  deligning,  engraving,  and  etching  hiftorical  and  other  prints." 

N.  GOODALE,  CM  of  the  Diftria  of  MaJJaehufetts. 
A  true  Copy  of  Record. 

Attcft  1  N.  Goo»AiE,  C/fri. 


A 


BRIEF  VINDICATION,  &c* 


SECTION  I. 
Frellmirtar;^  Obfervatiotis  on  the  SubjeSi  in  Difpute. 

REVEREND  SIR, 

Your  Frieridh  Letter,  which  vas  publlflied  in 
December,  1791, 1  could  not  obtain  until  feveral  months 
after  ;  and  have  not  the  pleafure  of  acknowledging 
your  politenefs  in  fending  me  a  copy  ;  although  from 
an  apology  ofl'ered  by  your  generous  brathers,  i  am  in- 
clined to  hope  it  was  not  a  dedgned  omillion. 

In  my  other  Piece  I  obferved,  ^'  that  it  was  not  the 
love  of  controverfy  which  induced  me  to  write."  I 
have  the  happinefs  ftill  to  believe,  that  this  is  not  my 
greatefl  motive.  And  had  your  arguments  proved  our 
fentiments  and  praftice  refpefting  communion,  to  be  un- 
fcriptural,  or  iuconfijlcv.t  with  that  brotherly  afFedtion 
which  the  gofpel  requires,  I  I'hould  indeed  •  have  been 
a  gainer  by  the  controverfy,'  and  would  have  acknowl- 
edged myfelf  indebted  to  you  for  the  inftruftion.  But 
after  I  had  carefully  examined  yoiir  arguments,  I  did 
not  find  the  evidence  fulficient  to  produce  conviftion  : 
therefore,  am  obliged  in  Jtncerity  to  abide  by  rAy  former 
opinion. 

Were  the  difpute  between  us  to  be  confidered  mere- 
ly perfoual,  and  unconnefted  with  the  interefts  of  re- 

*  This  Part  muft  Hill  be  confid«red  as  a  Reply  to  the  remarks  of  the 
Rev,  Noah  IVerceJler,  A.  B.  in  his  FrUndly  Letttr  to  the  Author. 


56 


Preliminary  Ohfervations. 


ligion,  I  fliould  not  think  myfelf  called  upon  to 
attempt  a  reply.  But  fince  the  honour  of  Chrift  as 
Head  of  the  church,  and  Law-giver  in  his  own  king- 
dom, and  the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  two  denomina- 
tions of  Chriftians  are  in  fome  meafure  involved  in  this 
difpute,  it  appears  to  me  of  importance  that  the  ground 
of  the  controveriy  fliould  be  fully  afcertained.  And  as 
you  have  endeavoured  to  lay  the  blame  wholly  to  our 
denomination^,  I  fhall  moft  cheerfully  come  forward, 
■with  a  vindication  of  rnyfelf  and  brethren. 

In  pui  fuing  my  'prefent  defign,  I  fliall  be  led  to  re- 
nark  upon  feveral  things.,  which  are  offered  to  confid- 
«>raj.ion  in  your  Friendly  Letter.  lu  doing  of  which,  I 
hope  to  be  governed  by  a  fpirit  of  candour  and  Chrit- 
tian  love  •,  and  can  affure  you,  that  nothing  would  give 
me  more  fenlihle  reget,  than  to  mifconceive,  or  mifrep- 
refent  your  meaning.  In  fome  inilances  I  could  have 
wiihed  that  you  had  been  more  explicit,  which  would 
have  relieved  me  from  the  fear  of  miftaking  you. 

It  win  not  be  exported,  that  I  Ihould  follow  you  in 
the  exa(ri:  order  in  which  you  have  treated  the  fubje(St ; 
nor  that  I  fliould  reply  to  all  that  you  have  written. 
Some  of  your  oI)fervations  are  agreeable  to  my  views  ; 
and  fome  of  them  appear  to  be  unconnefted  with  the 
I'ubjeft  in  difpute.  'fo  avoid  prolixity,  I  fliall  omit 
many  things  which  might  with  propriety  be  urged  in 
the  prefent  controverfy. 

You  have  obferved,  that  with  fome  degree  of  care 
you  had  perufed  the  pamphlet  which  I  had  written  :  if 
fo,  you  muil;  have  obi'erved  our  main  objedions  to  free 
communion  confill:  efleiitially,  in  two  things;  viz.  l.That 
baptifm  is  a  divinely  appointed  pre-requihte  to  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  table.  2.  That  iminerfiou  upon 
a  profeffion  of  faith  is  eflential  to  gofpel  baptifm.  The 
firll  of  thcfe  I  take  for  granted  you  have  given  up  :  for 
you  obferve,  (p  9.)  *  The  queftion  is  not,  whether 
baptifm  in  feme  mode  be  an  ejfential  qualification  ;'  you 
alio  add,  (p.  13.)  'I  do  not  deny  that  baptifm  was 
prior  to  coming  to  the  Lord's  table  in  th&  apoftolick 
praflice.  I  fuppofe  it  was  :  and  I  alfo  fuppofe  their  ex- 
ample to  be  worthy' of  imitation  in  like  circumllances.' 


PreHmittary  Ohfervations. 


57 


Thus,  Sir,  he  who  is  unbaptized,  however  amiable  his 
character  may  appear,  is  ejj'entially  difaual'ified  in  your 
efteem.  In  this  particular  we  feem  to  be  agreed,  that 
baptifm  in  fome  mode  is  eflential  to  a  due  qualification  for 
the  Lord's  table.  And  I  believe  this  to  be  the  general 
lenfe  of  the  two  denominations.  The  other  objeftion 
remains  yet  to  be  confidered  ;  which  may  be  divided  into 
two  queftions  :  i.  e.  Who  are  the  proper /iv^V^j- of  bap- 
tifm ?  And,  what  is  the  appointed  mode  ?  I  have  faid  in 
my  other  Piece,  that  we  conhder  ««  profeffed  believers 
as  the  only  proper  }''ubje(^ts  of  baptifm  j"  and  "that  im- 
medion  is  net  a  mere  drcumf.ance^  or  mode  of  baptifm, 
biit  eflential  to  the  ordinance."  I  have  not  obferved  in 
your  Letter  that  you  have  difproved  thefe  fentiments  ; 
but  what  you  have  faid  in  this  refpei^  fhall  be  attended 
to  in  its  place.  For  the  prefent  we  lhall  only  fay,  that 
you  have  raifed  a  huge  hoft  of fuppofitiotu  and  ccnj'iquen- 
ceSf  and  brought  them  all  againft  our  fentiments,  as  if 
you  were  determined  to  frighten  us  out  of  our  alle- 
giance to  the  great  Lanv-giver  :  but  we  may  fay  as 
Saint  Paul  in  another  cafe,  None  of  theft  things  -imve  us. 

If  I  have  rightly  comprehended  your  reafoning  in 
favour  of  free  communion,  the  moft  material  arguments 
are  the  foUowifig.  ].  <  Tr>at  the  eflence  of  baptifm 
does  not  confift  in  any  one  particular  mode  whatever.' 
(p.  10.)  2.  If  it  Ihould  finally  appear,  that  you  had 
miffed  the  divine  appointment,  yet,  as  '  godly  fmarity 
is  the  very  soul  and  essence  of  conformity  to  Chrifl,' 
you  are  therefore  <  as  well  accepted  in  the  fight  of  God, 
as  though  your  outward  condudi  liad  been  according  to 
the  appointed  mode.'  (p.  19,  21.)  3.  '  Suppoflng  that 
the  Psedobaptifts  are  really  in  an  error,  if  Chrill  does 
not  view  the  error  as  fo  effcntial  but  that  he  will  com- 
mune with  them,  why  cannot  you  commune  with  thofe 
at  the  table,  with  whom  God  communes  V  (p.  28,  29.) 

Thefe  appear  to  be  the  main  pillars  on  which  your 
fuperftrudlure  is  built  ;  and  ihall  each  of  them  be  par- 
ticularly confidered.  Having  thus  ftated  the  conftitu- 
ent  parts  of  the  difpute,  we  are  now  prepared  to  attend 
to  each  particular. 


'68     Believers  the  only  appointed  SuhjeHs  of  Baptifm. 


SECTION  II. 

Profejfed  Believers  the  only  appointed  SubjeSls  of  Baptifm, 

your  third  part  you  obferve,  '  The  queftion  to 
be  difputed  is  fummarily  this  :  "Whether,  for  a  perfon 
to  be  baptized  by  immei  fion,  after  believing,  be  an  ef- 
fential  term  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table  ?'  Of 
this  queftion  you  inform  your  readers  that  I  '  take  the 
affirmative  fide.*  But,  my  dear  fir,  you  have  not  ftated 
the  queftion  right  :  that  is,  if  you  mean  to  have  me  take 
the  affirmative.  Nor  will  your  quotations  from  me  fup- 
port  fuch  a  ftatement.  The  paffhges  quoted,  and  from 
which  you  make  the  miftake,  are  in  thefe  words  j  that 
baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  only  in  one  mode,  and 
to  one  kind  of  fubjefts."  That  "  profefled  believers 
are  the  ouly  proper  fubjefts  of  baptifm."  I  fuppofe  the 
difference  to  be  eafily  difcerned.  I  faid  «  profefled 
believers,"  you  fay  "  to  be  baptized  after  believing." 
The  former  I'uppofes  that  a  perfon  may  fatisfy  a  judg- 
ment of  charity,  and  yet  be  a  hypocrite  :  the  latter, 
that  he  is  infallibly  a  believer.  I  conclude,  that  a  perfon 
may  be  baptized  according  to  Cl. rift's  inftitution,  and 
yet  be  a  hypocrite  j  but  he  cannot  be  baptized  inftitu- 
tionally,  without  a  profeffion  of  faith.  We  are  obliged 
by  the  gofpel  rule  to  require  a  profeflxon  j  but  we  are 
not  obliged  to  know  the  fmcerity  of  the  perfon  who 
makes  it. 

Now,  Sir,  to  fome  the  queftion  may  appear  to  be  the 
fame  but  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  very  fpecific  dif- 
ference ;  and,  fi-om  the  wrong  manner  in  which  you 
have  ftated  it,  you  have  gone  on  to  draw  falfe  conclu- 
fions,  and  to  crowd  a  train  of  difagreeable  confequencas 
upon  our  fcntiments,  which  v/ill  appear  of  no  force, 
when  the  queftion  is  rightly  conftdered. 

You  inform  your  readers,  (p.  VI)  that  v/e  fuppofe, 
"  not  only  that  immerfion  is  effential  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptifm,  but  tlipt  none  are  proper  fubj^cts  of  it  but 
vifible  believers."  From  this  you  draw  the  following 
inference  :  <  If  none  are  proper  fubjedls  but  vifible  be 


Believers  the  only  appointed  Subjelis  of  Baptifm,  59 


llevers,  none  are  proper  fubjefts  but  real  believers.' 
You  jlluftrate  it  as  follows  :  *  For  althouglx  a  perfon's 
outwardly  appearing  to  be  a  proper  fubje^t,  may  give 
him  a  right  in  the  light  of  men,  it  does  not  in  the  fight 
of  God.' 

You  will  permit  me  here  to  inquire,  whether  you 
have  any  other  method  to  judge  of  the  *  real  piety'  the 
*  godly  ftncerity^  or  the  proper  qualifications  of  perfons 
for  fpecial  ordinances,  but  what  is  vifible,  or  in  the 
fight  of  men  If  you  have,  it  is  a  prerogative  which  we 
do  not  claim.  I  think,  Sir,  the  inference  grants,  that 
they  have  a  right  in  the  fight  of  men  \  and  although 
God  may  know  them  to  be  hypocrites,  as  he  is  not  plea- 
fed  to  interpofe  and  make  the  matter  vifible,  who  will 
dare  to  challenge  their  right,  and  forbid,  their  proceed- 
ing ? 

That  this  obfervation  may  appear  in  its  proper  light, 
we  will  bring  the  matter  upon  trial  and,  if  you  pleafe, 
we  will  borrow  an  example  from  the  New  Teftament 
to  illuftrate  it  by.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  the  Adls, 
we  have  an  account  of  Philip's  vifiting  and  preaching 
the  gofpel  in  Samaria,  and  of  the  happy  effects  which 
followed.  That  a  people  who  had  long  been  be- 
witched, were  now  reduced  to  reafon  and  religion, 
which  was  the  occafion  of  great  joy  in  that  city  ;  and  it 
is  faid,  "  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the 
things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name 
of  Jefus  Chrifl,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and 
luomen."  It  is  alfo  added,  that  Simon  believed that  is, 
he  appeared  to  Philip  and  others  to  believe  :  for  we  cannot 
fuppofe  from  the  account  afterwards  given  of  him,  that 
he  was  a  real  believer,  though  at  this  time  there  was 
nothing  appeared  to  the  contrary.  Now,  what  was 
Philip's  duty  in  the  prefent  cafe  ?  It  is  evident  that  he 
required,  as  a  pre-requiftte  in  his  candidates,  that  they 
believe  with  all  the  heart  ;  as  appears  from  another  cir- 
cumftance  recorded  in  the  fame  chapter.  And  although 
Simon  appeared  to  him  to  be  a  true  believer,  yet,  in  the 
fight  of  God,  he  was  nothing  but  a  hypocrite. 

It  is  abundantly  evident,  that  Philip  required  the 
fame    qualifications,  in  order  to  baptifm,  that  the 


60     Believers  the  only  appointed  StibjeSls  of  Baptifm. 


Baptifts  do  at  the  prefent  day.  It  is  equally  evident, 
that  he  baptized  a  pcrfon,  who,  in  the  fight  of  God, 
had  not  thofe  qualifications.  The  prefent  inquiry  is, 
whether  he  did  right  or  not  ?  If  you  fliould  choofe  to 
fay,  he  did  not  aft  confiftently  with  his  principles  ;  this 
will  lead  us  to  inquire  again,  what  reafons  could  deter- 
mine him  in  acting  otherwife,  as  he  did  not  know  the 
heart  of  Simon  But  as  this  anfwer  would  neceflarily 
involve  you  in  a  controverfy  with  him,  1  lhall  for  the 
prefent  leave  it,  to  be  fettled  between  you.  But  fhould 
you  give  your  opinion  in  favour  of  his  conduft,  by 
whatever  arguments  you  would  vindicate  that^  the  fame 
will  ferve  to  vindicate         under  fimilar  circumftances. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  attend  to  the  confequences 
you  have  drawn  from  the  preceding  obfervations  ;  i.  e. 
that  upon  our  principles  *  it  mny  be  neceffary  to  admin- 
ifter  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  fifty  or  a  hundred  times 
to  the  fame  perfon.'  Alarming  as  thefe  confequences 
may  appear  to  you,  they  do  not  greatly  terrify  us  :  For 
our  principles  have  had  a  practical  exiftence  for  ages 
paft  5  and  yet  I  can  aflure  you,  I  have  never  heard  of 
a  perfon's  being  baptized  Jive  and  twenty  times.  Nor  is  it 
common  with  us  to  baptize  a  perfon  more  than  once. 
But  if  we  fliould  think  it  neceffary  upon  any  occafion  to 
repeat  it,  Psedobaptifts  do  even  the  fame.  Some  of  them 
have  become  fo  liberal,  as  not  only  to  immerfe,  or 
fprinkle,  as  the  candidate  may  choofe  ;  but,  to  innnerfe 
thofe  who  have  been  fprinkled  in  inEincy,  and  have 
been  members  of  their  churches  for  many  years  !*  If 
it  be  neceffary  to  perform  it  twice,  I  know  not  but  that 
fome  circumftances  may  render  it  equally  neceffary  to 
perform  it  Jifty  times. 

But,  Sir,  I  wifli  to  bring  the  inftance  of  Philip  and 
Simon  once  more  into  view,  as  I  think  it  may  fervc  to 
remove  fome  of  your  fuppofed  difficulties.  It  will  un- 
doubtedly be  granted,  that  Philip  baptized  the prcerer, 
upon  the  fame  footing  which  he  did  the  other  Samari- 

•  If  I  am  rightly  informed,  the  Rev  Mr.  P —  paftor  of  a  church 
in  your  vicinity,  has  baptized  a  numhcr  who  had  been  baptized  in  in- 
f.incy.  'I  hc  fane  has  been  done  by  the  Rev.  Mr  B —  of  Raiidcjlph,  in 
Vermont.    Other  inftances  might  be  mentioned  if  neceffary, 


BilUvers  the  otily  appointed  Subjects  of  Bapttfm.  61 


tan  converts,  i.  e.  upon  a  prsfejfion  of  fiiih.  But,  when 
Peter  and  John  came  to  vifit  the  brethren  at  Samaria, 
and  had  laid  their  hands  on  a  number,  by  which  means 
the  niiraailoiis  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  were  conferred, 
Sitnm  beholding,  was  filled  with  aftonifliment,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  offer  them  money,  in  order  to  obtain  this 
power.  This  conduct  betrayed  his  ignorance  of  the 
true  fpirit  of  religion,  and  expofed  him  to  that  mofc 
levere  reproof  from  Peter  ;  "  Thy  money  perifh  with 
thee, — thou  haft  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter  -.for 
thy  heart  is  not  right  in  the fight  of  God.  For  1  perceive 
that  thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitternefs,  and  in  the  bond 
of  iniquity."  He  was  no  longer  to  be  conlidered  as  a 
Chriftian,  but  under  the  reigning  power  of  guilt  and 
unbelief. 

Now  fliould  we  fuppofe  Philip  to  return  this  way 
again  in  a  few  weeks,  and  after  inquiring  into  the  ftate 
of  his  young  converts,  he  is  informed  of  the  lituatioa 
of  Sim:n,  and  from  the  account  he  receives  is  defirous 
of  a  perfonal  interview  with  him  :  It  is  agreed  to,  and 
when  the  time  arrives,  Simon  comes  before  him  ;  blufh- 
ing  and  confulion  appear  in  his  face  ;  iliame  and  forrow 
mingle  in  his  eyes  ;  lie  paufes — he  fighs  !  at  length 
thus  addrefles  the  Evangelift  :  "  I  have  indeed  done 
diflionour  to  the  Chriftian  name,  and  have  given  ample 
proof  to  the  world,  that  I  was  a  ftrarjer  to  the  power 
and  divinity  of  the  gofpel  :  and  althoutrh  my  admira- 
tion was  raifed  by  the  miracles  I  beheld,  my  paflions 
moved  and  charmed  by  the  foft  eloqueace  of  your  per- 
fuafive  tongue  ;  yet  alas  !  I  was  but  in  love  wi:h  my- 
felf,  inftead  of  a  Saviour  ;  but  tiiy  iniqiitv  has  found  vie 
out,  and  now  appears  hateful  to  me."  He  informs  Philip, 
that  the  exhortation  given  him  by  the  apoftle  Peter  to 
repent,  was  fo  accompanied  with  the  divine  energy,  that 
he  had  now  reafon  to  hope  that  he  had  become  a  true 
penitent.  Philip,  and  the  church  at  Samaria,  are  fully 
fatisfied,  that  although  Simon,  when  he  made  a  pro- 
felBon,  v/as  in  the  gall  of  bitternefs  and  bond  of  iniquity y  yet 
that  he  is  now  become  a  true  child  of  God. 

You  will  permit  me  here  in  my  turn  to  inquire, 
whether  Simon  can  now  be  looked  upon  as  a  "jiftbly  qual- 

G 


62     Believers  the  only  appointed  Sitbje^s  cf  Bapti/in. 


ified  member  for  church  ftllowfliip  and  communion  ? 
or  whether  he  is  to  be  baptized  again  ?  I  do  not  wilh 
to  anticipate  your  anfwer  ;  but  as  it  is  a  difficulty  of 
your  own  propofing,  I  think  it  reafonable  to  give  you 
the  labouring  oar  ;  and  whatever  luay  you  are  pleafed 
to  decide  in  this  cafe,  will  undoubtedly  reheve  us  under 
fimilar  circumftances. 

Upon  the  whole,  does  it  not  appear  evident  to  every 
candid  reader,  that  we  require  no  more,  nor  any  other 
qualifications  in  our  candidates  for  baptifm,  than  what 
v/erc  required  in  the  apoftolick  age  ?  They  required 
their  candidates  to  believe  luith  all  the  heart ;  we  require 
no  more.  Therefore,  whatever  confequences  are  fairly 
deducible  from  our  principles  in  this  point,  the  fame 
are  equally  chargeable  upon  theirs.  '"^ 

Agreeably  to  the  foregoing  obfervations  r.re  the  fenti- 
mpnts  of  many  Paedobaptifl  writers.  I  will  here 
cite  the  words  of  one.  "  It  is  manlfeft  (faith  he) 
that  Philip's  principles  were,  to  baptize  none  but 
what  had  faving  grace,  and  believed  with  all  their 
hearts."'  Aifo,  "  It  is  oianifeft  that  the  apofiJcs  did  not 
"itend  to  baptize  any  adult  perfons,  except  they  had 
Knowledge  or  fatisfadlicn  that  they  had  the  feed  of 
<;race  fown  in  their  hearts.  Vv^itnefs  the  inftance  of 
Philip's  baptizing  the  eunijch  ;  again,  for  proof,  Peter's 
baptizing  Cornelius,  and  thofe  Gentiles  that  believed, 
after  they  had  received  the  Koly  Ghoft,  as  well  as 
the  believing  Jews  :  So  alfo  the  inftance  of  the  jailer's 
family.  Not  to  multiply  inftances,  it  is  well  known,  or 
may  be  well  known,  that  faith  is  always  fpoken  of  in 
the  word  of  God  before  baptifm  ;  and  v/e  all  agree  that 
baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  to  a  perfon  before  the 
Lord's  fupper."*  If  this  be  a  juft  ftatement  of  fa^ts, 
that  neither  Philip  nor  the  apoiiles  meant  to  baptize 
any  adults,  but  thofe  who  believed  with  all  the  heart  i 
and  that  it  is  well  known  that  faith  is  always  fpoken  of 
in  the  word  of  God  before  baptizing  ;  furely  the  Bap- 
tiils  cannot  be  reafonably  blamed,  for  endeavouring  to 
imitate  apoftolick  prui^licc. 


•  Frotli Ingham's  Right  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  6j,  6<. 


Believers  the  only  appointed  SuhjeBs  of  Baptifn:.  6? 


From  the  preceding  remarks,  yoti  may  probably  fee 
wherein  you  have  miftaken  the  matter,  in  charging 
our  lentiments  with  error  refpecling  the  quahiications 
of  candidates  for  baptifm.  You  feem  to  iuppofe,  that 
becaufe  we  require  them  to  be  vijible  believers,  that  wc 
are  obliged  to  know  that  they  are  real  beliei-ers  :  Thi; 
is  evidently  implied  in  your  objection,  '  That  if  none 
are  proper  fubje61;s  but  vilible  believers,  none  are  proper 
fubjcfb  but  real  believers.'  That  every  man  vcho  pro- 
feffes  religion  ought  to  be  what  he  profefles,  no  one 
will  deny  ;  but,  that  we  are  obliged  to  kuoru  them  to 
be  lirtccrc,  I  have  never  yet  conceived  Wei-e  we,  for 
fear  of  the  confequences,  to  refufe  to  adminifter  either 
the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  or  tlie  Lord's  fupper,  untii 
we  abfolutely  knew  who  were  Ji/icere,  I  believe  we 
Ihould  adminifter  no  more  until  the  end  of  time. 

But,  ftiould  we  allow  all  the  confequences  which  you 
have  fuppofed  to  be  true,  (vv^hich  will  by  no  means  be 
granted)  and  Ihould  we  then  fuppofe  again,  that  fome 
imagination,  more  fertile  than  yours,  might  fuggeft 
twice  as  many  more,  what  then  ?  Are  we  to  mutilate 
or  lay  afide  a  pofuive  inftitution,  for  fear  of  confequen- 
ces which  are  very  unlikely  ever  to  take  place  ?  Is  our 
obedience  to  be  meafured  by  our  own  conveniency,  or 
to  be  withheld  becaufe  of  fome  fuppofed.  difficulties  ? 
Surely  not. 

Pofuive  inftitutions  require  our  implicit  obedience  to 
the  fovereign  will  of  Him  who  inftituted  them,  witI>out 
afligning  any  reafons  for  their  fitnefs,  or  making  a  pro- 
vifo  in  cafe  of  fuppofed  difficulties.  They  r.re  well  dif- 
tlnguifhed  from  moral  precepts,  by  a  late  learned  writer. 
His  words  are  as  follow  :  ««  Moral  precepts,  are  precepts 
the  reafon  of  which  we  fee  ;  politive  precepts,  are  pre- 
cepts the  reafon  of  wliidi  we  do  not  fee.  Moral  du- 
ties arife  out  of  the  nature  of  the  cafe  itfelf,  prior  to  ex- 
ternal command  ;  pofitive  duties  do  not  arife  out  of  the 
nature  of  the  cafe,  but  from  external  command  ;  nor 
v/onld  they  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  fuch  com- 
mand, received  from  Him  whofe  creatures  and  fubjetTts 
we  are."*    Our  obligations  to  ^precepts  of  this  kind, 


•  Bifliop  Battler's  Analogy  of  Religion,  p.  172. 


64-    Believers  the  only  appointed  SiibjeBs  of  Bapiifm. 

are  v/ell  defcribed  by  Prefident  Edwards  ;  his  Avords 
arc — "  Such  precepts  are  the  grcatefl:  and  mofr  proper 
trial  of  obedience,  becaufe  in  them  the  mere  authority 
and  will  of  the  Legifiator  is  the  fole  ground  of  the  ob- 
iigarion  (and  nothing  in  the  natures  of  the  things  them- 
felves  5)  and  therefore  they  are  the  greateft  trial  of  any 
perfon's  refpeft  to  that  authority  and  will."-* 

Had  the  excellent  Mr.  Edwards  viewed  pofitive  in- 
ftitutions  in  the  fame  indifferent  light  wliich  you  do, 
it  is  not  probable  he  would  have  written  after  this  man- 
ner ;  but  perhaps  he  had  never  thought  of  yom  happy 
fuccedaneum,  ^ftr.cerhy,'  which,  like  tlie  ancient  philof- 
oplier's  ftone,  ran  turn  all  cur  £,\?t'rAY// omililons  of  pofi- 
tive dut'^^  '-r^'-.  -      n£ig  obedience. 

I  cc  !  not  be  denied,  that  profejjcd  hdieven 

are  p  ;  ,  ■  ^  cf  beptifm  :  bur  the  ciueitiori  before 

V;s  is,  VViitthcr  they  are  the  only  proper  fubje£ls  ? 
When  I  ufe  the  term  proper,  I  mean  not,  what  is  be- 
come fo  by  tradition  ;  but  what  is  agreeable  to  the  in- 
jftitution,  as  recorded  in  the  facred  hiftory  of  baptifm. 
That  no  other  in  fiances  are  recorded  you  implicitly  ac- 
knowledge, when  you  fay,  *  I  would  query,  whether 
the  evidence  that  believers  were  baptized,  is  any  evi- 
dence that  infants  were  not  alfo  baptized  V  This  query, 
in  the  firft  inftance,  grants,  that  there  is  evidence  that 
believers  were  baptized.  Secondly,  it  afks,  '  Whether 
that  is  any  evidence  that  infants  were  not  alfo  baptized  r' 
It  will  be  granted  tliat  it  is  not  pofitive  evidence  that 
they  were  not  ;  nor  is  it,  that  they  were  not  anointed 
with  the  holy  chrifm,  or  Jigved  with  the  fign  of  the  crofs, 
or  twenty  other  things  done  to  them  of  which  the 
<  fcripture  is fdtnt.^  E^ut  it  is  circumftantial  evidence 
that  they  were  not  :  for,  that  the  facred  hiftorians, 
when  recording  tire  many  inftances  of  the  baptifm  of 
believers  for  the  fpace  of  near  fixty  years,  until  the 
volume  of  infpiration  was  clofed,  and  never  once  men- 
tioning a  fingle  inftance  of  an  infant,  muft  look  like  a 
defign,  againft  infant  baptifm,  provided  it  was  then  in 
praftice.  It  is  not  eafy  to  account  for  their  negledling 
to  reard  zfaB,  on  which  fo  much  depended,  as  the  fu- 


♦  Difccurfts  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  68. 


Believers  the  only  appovitea  bubjetts  oj  isapfijm.    6  a 


ture  peace,  and  order  of  the  church  of  Chrift.  Nor 
does  it  appear  to  us  a  fufficient  apology  for  an  omiffion 
fo  interefting  to  fay,  that  the  right  of  infants  was  fo 
•well  eftabliiheJ  under  the  Jevvifh  difpenfation,  that  it 
was  unneceffn-y  that  any  exprefs  mention  ihculd  be 
made  of  it  in  the  New  Teftament  ;  unlefs-  baptifm  is  to 
be  confidered  as  a  Jewifh  rite,  rather  than  a  Chriltian 
injlitution.  For,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  the 
pritjlhood  being  changed^  there  is  t?ucie  of  necejjity  a  change 
alfo  of  the  la  w,  with  refpciSl  to  pofitive  inftitutions. 

In  order  to  bring  this  head  to  a  clofe,  you  wlil  per- 
mit me  to  inquire,  Whether  P^edobaptifts  in  general 
do  not  require,  in  all  unbaptizcd  adults,  a  perfonal  pro- 
feffion  of  faith,  in  order  to  their  being  admitted  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptifm  ?  That  they  do,  will  appear  from 
their  own  teftimony  :  "  Baptifm  is  not  to  be  adminif- 
tered  to  any  that  are  out  of  the  vifible  church,  until 
they  profels  their  faith  in  Chrift,  and  obedience  to 
him."* 

Shall  I  add  to  this  another,  from  a  late  advocate  for 
infant  baptifm,  who  has  complained  much  of  the  Bap- 
tifts  for  their  "  ajfuming"  language,  in  calling  the  bap- 
tifm adminiftered  by  them,  by  way  of  diftinccion,  '«  Be- 
lievers' Baptifm."  "  "Whereas,  (faith  he)  there  is  no 
other  baptifm  adminiftered  in  our  churches  but  the 
baptifm  of  believers,  or  thofe  who  are  accounted  fuch, 
either  upon  their  perfonal  profefllon,  or  in  the  repute 
of  the  church,  and  God's  gracious  acceptation.  As  to 
adult  perfons  unbaptized,  they  are  no  oiherwife  admit- 
ted to  baptifm  among  us,  it  is  known,  than  upon  a  per- 
fonal profelTion  of  f;iith."f 

This  gentleman,  from  the  general  manner  of  his  ex- 
preiTions,  muft  be  underftood  to  reprefent  the  whole 
denomination  j  and  evidently  carries  the  matter  quite 
as  far  as  we  do.  If  a  profejjkn  of  faith  be  the  only  terms 
on  which  you  admit  adults  to  baptifm  ;  if,  after  this, 
they  fhould  prove  their  profellion  to  be  falfe,  you  are 
as  much  obliged  to  baptize  them  ^ffty  times,  in  order 

•  Afftmbly  of  Divines*  Catcchifm. 
t  Clatk's  Defence  of  Infant  baptifm,  p.  z. 


66    Believers  the  only  appointed  Sul'Jefls  of  Baptifnu 


to  be  confiftent  upon  your  fentiments,  as  we  are  upon 
ours.  The  ftrongeft  terms  you  have  quoted  from  m.e 
are,  "  That  none  are  proper  fubjeds  of  baptifni  but 
profejfed  believen."  We  have  juft  heard,  that  there  is 
•»  no  other  baptifm  adininiftered  in  your  churches,  but 
the  baptifm  of  beUevers  :"  nor  will  it  relieve  the  mat- 
ter for  any  to  fay  that  it  is  added,  "  or  thofe  who  are 
accounted  fuch  upon  their  perfonal  profefiion."  This 
is  alL  that  we  contend  for  as  anfwering  the  rule  :  for 
v/e  do  not  pretend  abfolutely  to  know,  that  thofe  whom 
we  baptize  are  veal  htlieveys,  only  we  account  them  fuch 
upon  their  perfonal  profeffion.  Nor  can  it  be  confider- 
ed  as  an  exception,  what  is  further  added,  Tliat  they 
are  believers  "  in  the  repute  of  the  church  :"  for  no 
church  could  confiftently  repute  a  perfon  to  be  a  be- 
liever, without  rational  evidence  that  he  was  fuch.  But 
the  laft  exprciTion  fecms  to  carry  the  matter  to  a  de- 
gree of  certainty  ;  That  they  arc  believers  in  "  God's 
gracious  acceptation  :"  for  although  perfons  may  pro- 
fefs,  aaJ  churches  may  account  them  to  be  believers ; 
yet  certainly  God,  as  he  caniiot  be  deceived,  will  not 
accept  any  as  fuch,  but  thofe  who  arefo  in  reality. 

We  will  next  take  notice  of  that  very  fcriptural  ac- 
count given  by  Dr.  Hopkins.  When  defcribing  the 
fubjeifls  of  baptifm,  he  fays,  "  The  proper  fubjefts  of 
baptifm,  if  adult,  are  thofe  who,  by  profelhon  and 
appearance,  are  believers  in  Chrift  and  true  friends  to 
him.  None  but  they  who  are  really  fuch,  do  in  heart 
put  011  Chrijl  :  They  muft  therefore  be  really  holy,  in 
order  to  put  on  this  vifiblity  and  profellion  of  it,  with 
propriety  and  truth,  which  they  do  in  baptifm  :  for  if 
they  be  not  really  fuch,  they  are  utterly  unqualified  in 
the  fight  of  God,  to  be  admitted  to  baptifm,  as  it  is,  on 
their  part,  only  a  piece  of  hypocrify.  Therefore  none 
are  to  be  admitted  to  this  ordinance,  but  thofe  who,  in 
the  view  of  the  church,  appear  to  be  true  friends  to 
Chrift  or  believers  in  him,  and  really  holy,  and  are  juftly 
confidered  by  them  as  fuch,  who  can  judge  only  by 
outward  appearance,  and  cannot  certainly  know  the 
heart. 


Beiiivcrs  the  only  appointed  Subjects  of  Baptifm.  67 


«  That  none  but  fuch,  who  are  thus  vifiblv,  and  in 
the  charitable  judgment  of  the  church,  and  of  thofe 
who  adminifter  this  ordinance,  believei-s  in  Chrift  and 
really  holy,  are  the  proper  fubjects  of  this  ordinance, 
and  to  be  admitted  to  baptifm,  is  abundantly  evident  fro^n 
fcripture,  as  well  as  from  the  nature  of  the  tranfadion, 
and  the  reafon  of  things.  The  apoftles,  when  they 
firft  began  to  adminifter  Chriftian  baptifm,  an'd  form  a 
church,  baptized  none  but  fuch  who  gladly  received  the 
word.  When  the  eunuch  delired  to  be  baptized,  Philip 
faid,  If  ihcu  bslievejl  ivith  all  thine  hearty  thou  mayejf. 
This  implies  that  he  was  not  qualified  for  baptifm,  or  a 
fit  fubjedl  of  that  ordinance,  unlei's  he  were  a  true  be- 
liever in  Chrift  :.  and  that  he  could  not  baptize  him, 
unlefs  he  profefled  and  appeared  to  be  fuch  a  believer. 
Hence  all  who  were  baptized,  and  formed  into  churches, 
were  confidered  and  addreffed  by  the  apoRles,  in  their 
letters  to  them,  as  faints  or  holy  perfons,  believers  in 
Chrift,  and  friends  to  him  ;  as  tiiofc  who  were  faved, 
and  heirs  of  eternal  life  ;  or,  which  is  the  fame,  as  real 
Chriftians  ;  of  which  every  one  muft  be  fenfible,  who 
reads  the  Afts  of  the  apoftles,  and  their  epifties."  * 
Thefe  are  words  fitly  fpoken,  and  are  like  apples  of  gold,  in 
picfures  cffilver. 

If  indeed  it  be  evident  from  fcripture,  and  in  the 
charitable  judgment  of  the  church,  "  That  none  but 
fuch,  who  are  thus  vifibly  believers  in  Chrift  and  really 
holy  are  the  proper  fubjed^sof  this  ordinance,  and  to  be 
admitted  to  baptifm,"  as  h;is  juft  been  afferted  ;  and, 
that  the  apoftles,  when  they  firft  began  to  adminifter 
Chriftian  baptifm,  and  form  a  church,  baptized  none 
but  fuch  who  gladly  received  the  -lu^rdf  we  can  but  wonder 
that  a  body  of  Chriftians  who  profefs  to  take  the  Woiaa 
'OF  God,  as  their  only  rule  of  faith  and  pradice,  ftiould 
blame  us  for  fo  nearly  imitating  thofe  firft  builders  of 
the  Chriftian  churcii  !  For  had  the  gentleman  but  now 
quoted,  been  giving  a  narrative  of  the  fentiments  and 
praElice  of  the  Baptift  churches  at  the  prefent  day,  he 
could  not  have  given  an  account  dilEmilar,  without  con- 
tradidling  fober  fadt.    If  it  fliould  be  objected  to  what 


•  Syftem  of  Divinity,  Part  II,  Chap.  v.  p.  305,  306. 


68    Believers  the  only  appointed  Subjccls  of  Bapttfin. 

has  now  been  faid,  that  the  preceding  is  only  an  account 
of  the  true  quahfications  of  adults,  it  will  be  readily 
granted,  and  at  the  fame  time  afTerted,  that  the  Bible 
knows  but  of  one  kind  of  qualifications  in  candidates  for 
baptifm  j  it  knows  nothing  of  higher  and  lover,  of  pcf:- 
tive  and  negative  qualifications. 

"  Neither  the  forerunner,  nor  the  apoftles  of  Chrift 
have  faid  any  thing  on  which  fucli  a  diftinftion  can  be 
founded  ;  as  they  infifted  on  repentance  and  faith  as 
neceflary  in  order  to  acceptance  with  God,  and  remif- 
fion  of  iins,  fo  they  infifted  upon  the  profejfion  of  them, 
in  order  to  their  being  admitted  into  the  viJibU  king- 
dom or  church  of  Chrift.  They  baptized  none,  but 
upon  this  ground.  Thofe  who  appeared,  to  a  judgment 
of  charity,  to  have  thefe  qualifications,  they  admitted  to 
baptifm,  and  thofe  only."  *'  In  a  word,  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  New  Teftament,  it  is  plain,  that  nothing 
iefs  or  lower  than  a  profefllon  of  faith  and  true  repent- 
ance was  required  in  order  to  a  perfon's  enjoying  tlie 
privilege  of  baptifm^  And  «  the  diftlnftion  of  higher 
and  loioer  qualifications  for  the  two  ordinances,  and  the 
notion  of  negative  evidences  being  a  fufficient  qualifica- 
tion for  baptifm,  was  never  learnt  from  the  New  Tefta- 
ment, but  is,  doubtlefs,  of  human  invention."* 

Evidence  of  this  kind  might  be  multiplied,  but  it  is 
hoped  that  what  has  been  offered  will  give  full  fiitisfac- 
tion.  We  hope  we  (hall  not  be  thought  obftinate  if 
we  fiiould  ftill  fiiy.  That  we  think  the  fcripture  abund- 
antly juftifies  the  obfervatlon.  That  prof  •fed  believers  ate 
the  only  proper  fubjecls  of  baptifm.  If  you  fl:iould  repeat 
your  former  query,  <  Whether  that  is  any  evidence  that 
infants  were  not  alfo  baptized  ?'  you  will  not  think  the 
rcqucft  unreafonable,  if  we  fliould  call  on  you  to  make 
out  fcripture  proof,  that  ever  one  infant  was  baptized,  by 
Chrift  or  his  apoftles.  Should  you  ajfert  it  without 
proof,  it  will  be  thought  a  fufficient  anfwer  to  deiiy  it 
without. 

We  fliould  now  be  prepared,  in  a  dire£l:  way,  to  treat 
upon  the  Mode  of  baptifm,  were  it  not  for  an  objeftion 
you  have  made  againft  St.  John's  baptifm,  which  it  may 
be  ncceffary  firft  to  confider. 

*  Dr.  Robbins'i  Reply  to  Mr.  Cotton's  EfTays,  n  6,  7. 


jfokns  Bnptifm  conjidercd. 


69 


SECTION  III. 

Whether  JohnV  B.ipiifm  belonged  to  ihs  Jewifo  or  Chrij- 
t'tan  DifpcnfatioUi  particularly  crdjidered. 

■  \  GU  afk  (p.  10)  'By  what  authority  do  you 
make  iaimerfion  efiential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptifm, 
in  contradirtirKftion  to  other  modes  and  circumftances  ?' 
I  anfwer,  By  the  authority  of  God's  ivcrd^  and  the  con- 
feffed  meaning  of  the  Greek  verb  [bnpti-zi^)  to  baptize. 

You  have  endeavoured  to  evade  part  of  the  fcripture 
evidence  in  favour  of  immerfion,  by  fug^efting  th::t  the 
baptifm  adniiniftered  by  John  was  not  Chrijlian  bap- 
tilm.  Your  objections  are  t!ie  following.  Yon  fny, 
*  We  have  no  roafon  to  fupjiofc  that  Jolui  bap'.Ized  in 
all  refpedts  agreeably  to  the  Chriftian  viode  of  baptifm  ;* 
But  why  not  Becaufe,  <  it  is  pretty  evident,  that  he 
did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity.'  But  fup- 
pofe,  Sir,  he  had  baptized  in  the  name  of  Shadmcb^ 
Mejhachy  and  Ahediwgo,  it  would  afford  no  argument  in 
favour  of  a  different  mode.,  or  any  reafon  to  fuppofe  that 
the  aEl  of  baptizing  was  not  the  fame.  John  and  the 
apoftles  baptized  among  the  fame  people  ;  hence  it  is 
moft  likely  they  underftood  the  ivord  in  the  fame  fenfe. 
In  fupport  of  your  obfervation,  you  mention  the  inftance 
in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Adls.  From  which  you 
infer,  that  the  twelve  difciples  would  certainly  have 
heard  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  would  not  have  been 
again  baptized,  had  John's  baptifm  and  the  Chriftian  in- 
ftitution  been  the  fame. 

It  appears  evident  that  the  queftion  did  not  refpcct 
ordinary  ififluet:cesy  or  name  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  :  for, 
they  could  not  be  believers  without  the  former,  nor 
John's  difciples  without  having  heard  of  the  latter. 
John  exprefsly  declared,  at  the  time  of  his  baptizing, 
That  One  fhould  come  after  him  mightier  than  he,  who 
fhould  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and^;v.  This 
was  the  fabjeiTt  of  Paul's  inquiry,  and  had  reference 
only  to  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  be- 
llowment  of  which  they  had  not  yet^heard.    But,  you 


70 


John^s  Baptifm  conjukred. 


alk,  <  Why  w^ere  thefe  difciples  again  baptized  ?'  I  fhall 
not  undertake  to  tell  why,  nor  do  I  believe  that  they 
were.  I  fee  nothing  in  the  reading  which  requires  this 
conftruflion  :  for  the  paflage  before  us  appears  not  to 
be  Luke's  account  of  Paul,  but  Paul's  account  of  John's 
do£lrine  and  baptifm.  For  it  is  written,  Then  faidPcult 
John  verily  baptized  ivith  the  baptifvi  of  repentance,  faying 
unto  the  people,  that  they  fhoidd  It  /ieve  on  him  who  /Ijot/ld 
come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Chri/l  Jefus.  IFhen  they  heard 
this,  (that  is,  the  people  whom  John  taught)  they  were 
baptized  (by  John)  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus.  This 
concludes  Paul's  account  of  John.  The  liiftorian  then 
takes  notice  of  Paul's  condiicT:,  that  when  he  had  laid  his 
hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Gh?d  come  on  them  and  they 
fpahe  ivith  tongues,  and  prophfud. 

You  feem  to  think  that  thefe  difciples  were  re-bap- 
tized by  Paul  in  the  Chriftian  mode  ;  but  did  you  ob- 
ferve,  Sir,  that  the  Holy  Ghofi  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
form  of  adminiftration  here  recorded  ?  It  is  only  faid, 
They  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jfus. 

That  the  reader  may  not  confider  us  to  be  partial  in 
the  explanation  now  given,  I  would  obferve  that 
many  eminent  Psedobaptifts  have  underftood  it  in  the 
fame  light  which  we  do.  I  fliall  mention  but  two  or 
three,  as  fufficient  to  my  prefent  puVpofe.  Dr.  Rob- 
bins,  when  fpeaking  of  John's  baptifm,  has  the  follow- 
ing reniark  upon  this  paffage  ;  "  When  they  heard 
this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  ;  that  is,  they  were  baptized  by  John  himfelf.''* 

In  perfect  agreement  with  this  are  the  fentiments  of 
Mr.  Poole.  «  When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptised 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus  ;  that  is,  the  difcipleSj  or 
thofe  that  John  preached  to,  who,  v/hen  they  heard 
what  the  Baptifi:  faid  in  the  foregoing  verfe,  were  bap- 
tized." "  As  for  Paul's  impofing  his  hands  upon  them 
who  are  faid  to  be  baptized,  it  might  very  well  be  : 
That  the  twelve  difciples  might  have  been  baptized  by 
John,  and  now  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  thefe  extra- 
ordinary gifts  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  St. 
Paul  :  For  to  what  end  ihou4d  thefe  difciples,  who  had 


*  Reply  to  Cctiou's  E{ray»,p,  ai. 


John's  Baptifm  ccnftdered. 


71 


been  baptized  •with  St.  John's  baptifm,  be  ngain  bap- 
tized by  Paul  ?"  He  further  adds,  "  It  is  evident  that 
the  apoftles  themfelves  were  only  baptized  with  the 
baptifm  of  John,  for  tliere  were  none  elfe  to  baptize 
them."* 

As  in  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witncfles  every 
word  fhall  be  eftabhlhed,  I  will  only  add  the  opinion  of 
Calvin.  Speaking  of  thefe  twelve  difciples,  he  faith, 
«<  Whereas  therefore  they  anfwer  that  they  know  not 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghoft,  it  is  to  be  under- 
flood  as  if  they  had  faid,  they  have  not  yet  heard 
whether  the  graces  of  the  Spirit,  of  which  Paul  alked 
them,  were  given  t©  the  difciples  of  Chrift.  But  I 
[Tant  that  that  was  the  irne  baptifm  of  John's,  and  all 
one  and  the  felf-famc  with  the  baptifm  of  Chrift  ;  but 
1  deny  that  they  were  baptized  again."  And  in  anoth- 
t  r  place  he  faith,  "  Whereby  alfo  it  is  made  moft  cer- 
tain, that  the  minifiry  of  John  was  altogether  the  fame 
]\  was  afterwards  committed  to  the  apoftles.  For 
iiTerent  hands  wherewith  it  v/as  adminiftered,  make 

■  he  baptifm  different  ;  but,  the  fame  do&ine  (how- 

■  :  to  be  the  fame  baptifm.  John  and  the  apoftles 
'  in  one  doftrins  ;  both  baptized  into  repentance, 

'  into  the  forgivenefs  of  fins,  both  into  the  name  of 

Siiouid  it  ftill  be  infilled  upon,  that  they  were  re- 
baptized  by  Paul,Jt  wIU  by  no  means  help  your  argu- 
ment, unlefs  proved,  that  they  were  fprir.kled,  or  had 
water  poured  on  them,  inftead  of  being  immerfed.  To 
nllcu'  that  they  were  rc-baptized,  will  (till  be  in  our  fa- 
. and  vindicate  our  conduce  in  baptizing  thofe  who 
not  been  baptized  according  to  the  Chriftian 

In  concluding  your  remarks  upon  this  head,  you  fay, 
'■  Jjhn's  baptifm  was  both  began  and  ended  under  the 
:h  dIf;'>enfation.'    But,  may  I  not  inquire  by  what 
.ority  you  affert  this  ?  Was  there  any  thing  in  the 
:.Vianner  of  John's  miniftry,  which  refembled  a  Jewifli 

*  VId.  Pol.  m  loc. 
t  Inftitut.  Chrift.  Rclig.Lib.  IV.  Chap.  xv.  5  i8,  7. 


72 


Johri's  Bnptiftn  confidt  t  ed. 


pnejl  ?  Or  was  there  any  thing  in  the  Jewifli  ritual  that 
required  John  to  baptize  repenting  finners  in  Jordan  ? 
If  fo,  you  will  oblige  us  in  making  it  appear. 

If  John's  baptifm  belonged  to  the  Jewifh  difpenfa- 
tion,  why  v/ere  the  chief  priefts  and  elders  fo  furprifing- 
ly  ignorant  of  it,  that  when  Chrift  alked  them,  Whether 
it  were  from  heaven  or  of  men,  they  faid,  We  cannot  tell  F* 
You  will  pleafe  to  obferve,  that  the  perfons  to  whom 
Chrift  put  this  queftion,  were  not  the  ignorant  multi- 
tude, but  the  c/jief  pritfls  and  elders,  and  it  had  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  authority  by  which  John  baptized  j 
which,  if  received  from  them,  they  muft  certainly  have 
known  it,  and  it  would  have  been  much  to  their  advan- 
tage in  this  pinching  cafe  to  have  owned  it. 

But,  Sir,  when  you  lay,  *  John's  miniftry  was  under 
the  Jewilh  difpenfation,'  you  evidently  mean,  that  he 
belonged  to  it.  If  fo,  he  muft  have  been  inaugurated 
accorchng  to  their  ritual,  or  otherwife  be  confidered  as 
an  impoftor.  But  do  the  facred  pages  any  where  teach 
us  to  believe,  that  John  ever  palfed  under  thofe  confc' 
crating  ceremonies,  or  was  ever  clad  with  a  prieftly  veft- 
ment  ?  Or,  do  you  confider  him  only  as  a  prophet  of 
that  difpenfation  .''  If  John  belonged  to  the  Old  Tefta- 
ment  difpenfatiouj  why  did  not  the  tranflators  place 
him  with  the  Jewifh  prophets  .''  By  finding  him  in  the 
New,  the  *  ignorant  and  inattentive'  will  be  apt  to  fup- 
pofe  he  belongs  to  tliis  difpenfation. 

But,  is  it  not  abundantly  evident,  that  the  Jewifli  cler- 
gy confidered  John  as  introducing  a  new  difpenfation  ? 
That  this  was  the  cafe,  and  that  the  matter  may  ftand 
in  a  fair  light,  let  us  conlider  what  is  written,  John  i. 
19 — 25.  The  Jenvs  fent priefls  and  Levites  from  Jenfa- 
Icm  to  afk  hiin,  (John)  Who  art  thou  ?  yJnd  he  confjfed, 
and  denied  not but  confejfed,  I  am  not  the  Chrift.  And 
they  ajked  him.  What  then  ?  Art  than  Elias  ?  And  he  faith, 
I  am  not.f    Art  thou  that  prophet  ?  (or  a  prophet  ?)  And 

*  Matt.  xxi.  ar, 

t  It  may  te  ol.ferved,  that  the  [cws  were  thought  to  have  inihibed 
the  Pythagorean  philofophy,  v.  hich  taught  the  dotlrint  of  ti  anfmigra- 
t-.on  ;  therefore,  when  they  afkei  John' whether  he  was  Eliaf,  their 
meaning  was  this,  vshetJier  t4ic  foul  of  Elia*  were  not  now  come  in 


John^s  Bapt'tfm  conjidered. 


75 


ht  anfiueredt  No.  Then  /aid  they  unio  him.  Who  art  thou  ? 
He /aidt  lam  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  ike  luildernefsi  make 
Jiraight  the  way  of  the  Mord,  ns  faith  the  prophet  Efaias. 
And  they  afked  him.  Why  baptizejl  thou  then,  if  thou  bt  not 
that  Chriji,  nor  E/iar,  neither  that  prophet  F 

Thcfc  inquiries,  made  by  the  Jewifh  clergy  refpefting 
John's,  baptifm,  abundantly  mnnifeft  two  things  :  1.  That 
they  were  totally  ignorant  of  John's  being  a  minifter  of 
their  difpenfiiion.  2.  That  they  expected,  when  either 
Elias  or  Chrift  came,  they  would  introduce  a  new  ftate 
of  things. 

Now  as  John  had  come  baptizing  with  water,  in  a 
^*-ay  different  from  all  the  requirements  of  the  ceremo- 
:iral  law,  and  by  an  authority  unknown  to  them,  they 
rerifonably  concluded  that  he  rnuft  be  one  or  the  other  of 
tliofc  perfons  they  were  looking  for. 

I  with  to  add  two  paffages  of  fcriptnre,  as  fully  ccn- 
firming  the  above  obfervations.  The  firft  is  Luke  xvi. 
16.  The  law  and  the  prophets  ivere  until  John  :  fince  that 
time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached  and  every  man  prefetk 
into  it.  Tiiis  obfervation  made  by  Chrirt,  cannot  rea- 
fonably  be  referred  to  John's  birth  or  death  ;  but  evi- 
dently refpedls  the  beginning  of  his  miniftry  :  for  then 
he  began  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  to  pro- 
claim the  advent  of  the  Saviour  ;  and  men  in  multi- 
tudes flocked  to  this  nfew  difpcnfation,  called  the  king- 
dom of  God.  The  other  pafiage  is,  Mark  i.  I — 4. 
The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jhsus  Christ  the 
Son  of  God  :  As  it  is  nuriiien  in  the  prophets.  Behold,  I  fend 
my  mtjfenger  before  thy  face,  ivhich  fiall  prepare  thy  way 
hifore  thee.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  ivildernefs,  Pre- 
pare ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  hif  paths  flraight.  John 
did  baptize  in  the  wilder nefs,  and  preach  the  baptifm  of  re- 
pentance for  the  remiffton  of fins. 

Thus,  Sir,  the  Evangclifi  here  calls  John's  miniftry 
The  beginning  of  the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrifl.    But  you  in* 
form  your  readers,  that  it  was  under,  or  belonged  to 
I  the  Jewifli  difpenfation.    It  will  now  be  loft  to  the  im- 

uitSlKr  bixly  ?  To  which  John  aiifwered  no.  But  Ghrift  told  his 
difriplc*  that  Eliaa  had  already  comt,  not  in  the  Jewifb,  but  in  a  tnjc 

H 


74; 


'Johi's  Bapfifin  conftdered. 


partial  to  judge,  whether,  for  the  fake  of  fupporting 
a  particular  hypothefis,  you  have  not  erred  from  the' 
truth.  And  although  you  concede  that  every  '  candid 
inquirer'  nnift  view  the  matter  in  the  fame  light  which 
you  do,  it  is  very  poffible  that  fome  who  are  entitled  to 
that  character,  may  difi'er  from  you. 

But,  Sir,  you  have  left  your  readers  fllll  under  one 
difficulty  refpeiSling  the  matter.  As  you  deny  that 
John's  min'ijlry  belonged  to  the  Chriftian  difpenfation, 
you  have  not  informed  them  when  that  begun.  P'rom 
the  analogy  of  your  reafoning,  we  muft  fuppofe  you  be- 
gin it  at  the  death  of  Chrift. 

You  will  now  permit  me  to  inquire,  whether  the 
baptifm  adminiftered  by  the  apoftles  of  Chrift  before 
his  death  was  Jewilh  baptifm  ?  Or,  which  difpenfation 
it  belonged  to  ?  Or,  whether  to  neither  i  It  is  faid, 
John  iii.  22 — 24,  After  ihefe  things  came  Jejus  and  his 
difciples  into  the  laud  of  judea  ;  and  there  he  tarried  with 
them,  and  baptized.  And  John  alfo  luas  baptizing  in  Enon, 
near  to  Salim,  bccaufe  there  ivas  much  -water  there  :  For 
John  was  not  yet  cajl  into  prijon.  The  Pharifees  alfo 
heard  that  Jejus  made  and  baptized  more  difciples  than 
John.,  ( though  Jefus  himfelf  baptized  not,  but  his  difciples.  J 
This  baptifm  was  cotemporary  with  John's,  and  un- 
doubtedly under  the  fame  difpcniation. 

But  will  Chriftians  in  general  be  willing  to  allow, 
that  both  Jefus  and  John  were  miniiters  of  the  legal  dif- 
penfation ?  And  that  the  ordinances  inftltuted,  and  ad- 
n^iniftered  by  them,  belonged  to  that  difpenfation  ?  I 
faid  ordinances  ;  for,  if  baptifm  is  to  be  confidercd  in 
this  light,  undoubtedly  the  facred  Supper  is  to  be  view- 
ed upon  the  fame  footing  ;  for,  this  was  inftituted  and 
adminiftered  by  Chrift  before  his  death,  and  never  in- 
ftituted by  him  afterv^nrds. 

As  Chrift  was  the  fame  divine  perfon before  his  death, 
that  he  was  after  he  arofc,  it  was  by  his  appointment 
and  authority,  that  his  diiciples  were  fent  to  tench  and 
baptize.  They  did  not  receive  their  commidlon  from.. 
the  chief  priefts,  but  from  Jefus.  And  John's  preach- 
ing and  baptifm  were  as  independent  of  the  Jewilh  dif- 
penfation as  that  of  the  diiciples  of  Chrift. 


John*s  Bnpt  'tfm  eonftdered. 


75 


The  authority  by  which  John  the  Baplijl  3(^:6x1,  both 
in  preaching  and  baptizittg,  is  exprefsly  declared  by  the 
EvangeHft  John,  chap.  i.  verfe  G.  There  was  a  manJtM 
'from  Godj  ivhofe  name  was  John.  The  fame  came  for  a 
'>a)itnefs,  8tc.  What  St.  Paul  faid  of  his  commiffion  to 
preach,  with  a  little  variation  may  be  faid  of  John's  : 
For  he  neither  rec/tveii  ii  of  man,  neither  inu  he  taught  it, 
but  by  the  revelatkn  of  Jefus  Chriji.  Neither  ivent  he  'up 
to  Jenifalemy  to  them  which  were  in  the  frier's  'effice  before 
him  ;*  but  he  went  into  the  wildernefs  of  Judea,  and 
entered  upon  the  work,  he  was  appointed  untOj  by  him 
who  fent  him  to  baptize  withwater.f 

The  Jewifli  rulers  knew  nothing  of  John's  baptifm  as 
belonging  to  their  difpenlation  ;  you  know  nothing  of 
its  belonging  to  the  Chriftian  ;  and  perhaps  it  might 
puzzle  you  both,  to  determine  whether  it /-was  from 
btaven  or  of  men  J 

Upon  the  whole,  if  the  baptifm  adminiftered  by  John, 
as  the  beginning  of  the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrij!,  and  that 
which  was  adminittered  by  the  dilciples  ofChrift,  by 
his  authority,  and  in  his  preience,  were  not  Chriflian 
baptifm,  we  know  of  none  which  is  defer'ving  of  the 
name. 

I  have  been  more  particular  upon  this  point,  becaufe 
modern  writers  lay  lo  much  ftrefs  upon  it.  But  it  re- 
ally appears,  that  to  conlider  John's  miniftry  as  a  ^art 
of  the  Jewiih  difpenilition,  is  both  uafcriptural,  and 
prejudicial  to  the  cr.ufe  of  religion. 

Finally,  ihouid  it  even  be  fuppofed,  that  there  could 
be  a  dilHnftion  made  between  the  baptifm  of  John 
and  the  Chriftian  inftitution,  refpefting  the  form  of 
words  ufed  in  the  adminlftration,  it  would  by  no  means 
afleit  the  cafe  before  us.  For  you  will  pleafe  to  re- 
member that  the  difpute  is  not  about  the  form  of  words  ; 
but  the  acl  of  baptizing.  Hence  if  Mahomet  had  writ- 
ten his  iCoran  in  Greek,  and  had  ordered  his  difcip'es  to 
be  baptized  in  his  name  ;  and  had  expreffed  the  aft  by 
the  fame  Greek  verb  by  which  Chriftian  baptifm  is  ex- 
preffed  }  fhould  we  not  reafonably  conclude  that  they 
baptized  in  the  fame  mode  which  Chriftians  did,  not- 


•  Gal  i.  II,  17. 


t  John  i.  13. 


76 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


■withftanding  the  difference  of fmth  and  names  into  which 
they  were  baptized?  Let  candour  judge,  and  I  w3l 
abide  the  decifion. 

Therefore,  until  you,  or  fome  other  pcrfon,  n»a!l 
prove  that  John's  miniftry  belonged  to  the  Jewi{h  dif- 
penfation,  we  fhiall  confide  in  the  judgment  of  the  Evan- 
gelift,  that  it  was  the  beginmug  cf  the  go/pel  difpenjation. 
And  confequently  the  manner  of  John's  baptizing  may 
be  cqnliftently  urged  to  eftabliih  the  mode  of  Chriftian 
baptifm. 


SECTION  IV. 

Ihe  Mode  of  Baptifm^  and  its  Connexion  nvith  the  Siihjelt 
in  Difpute,  particularly  cotftdered. 

Baptism,  like  man  in  his  primeval  ftate,  when 
it  firft  came  out  of  the  hand  of  its  inftitutor,  was  pure. 
But  it  has  been  bafely  contaminated,  and  perverted  from 
its  original  dellgn,  to  very  difterent  purpofes  It  is  no 
longer  dependent  on  original  inftitution  ;  but  can  be- 
come all  things  to  nil  men^  as  circumftances  may  require. 

It  is  evident,  Sir,  that  you  and  I  differ,  both  in  opin- 
ion and  prafiice,  refpeifting  the  mode  of  baptifm.  I  have 
ventured  to  fay  in  my  other  Piece,  that  "  baptifm  is  to 
be  adnniniftcred  only  in  one  mode,"  and  that  *'  immer- 
fion  is  eflential  to  the  ordinance."  You  have  given 
it  as  your  opinion,  (p.  10)  'That  the  ejfence  of  baptifm 
does  not  confift  in  any  one  particular  mode  whatever 
and  that  '  it  may  be  acceptably  performed  either  by 
fpritiklingy  by  pouring  on  zttater,  or  by  immcrfon^  In  the 
following  page  you  add,  <  It  may  be  fcrupled  whether 
you,  or  any  other  man,  can  afcertain  precifeiy  the  apof- 
tolic  mode  of  biptifm.'  If  this  be  indeed  the  cafe, 
then  we  may  undoubtedly  do  as  the  children  of  Ifrael 
did  when  they  had  no  king,  evtry  man  'what  is  right  in 
his  oiun  <ycs. 


The  Moiie  ofBaptifm. 


77 


Cut,  whether  the  fubjecV  be  involved  in  fo  much  un- 
certainty as  you  fuggei^,  is  worthy  of  ferious  inquiry. 
We  cannot  fuppofe  you  to  be  confident  with  regard  to 
your  own  mode,  nor  that  you  will  attempt  to  prove  it 
to  be  aportolic  ;  unlefs  you  mei:n  to  emphafize  the 
adverb  *  prectfely,'  and  Include  in  it  all  thofe  trival  cir- 
cumftances  you  have  mentioned  (p.  10.)  :  Such  as, 
whether  <  the  fubjefts  were  put  into  the  water  backward 
or  forward,  or  what  length  of  time  they  kept  them 
under  water,  or  at  what  time  they  called  the  name  of 
the  Trinity  over  them/  &c.  But  fuppofing  it  Ihould  be 
difficult  to  determine  upon  fome  of  the  circiimftances 
you  have  mentioned,  and  we  fliould  poflibly  milVike 
one  or  more  of  them,  would  any  renfon able  perfon  con- 
clude, that  fuch  an  omilTion  would  atFoft  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance,  as  much  aa  to  change  it  from  vmntrjion 
to  fprinUing  ? 

But,  Sir,  you  fay  the  '  ejfcnce  of  bapiifm  does  not  con- 
fill  in  any  one  particular  mode  whatever.'  What  you 
mean  by  <  cjjhice'  without,  or  independent  of  mode,  or 
of  any  particular  mode,  appears  unintelligible.  For, 
if  the  L'JJence  of  baptifm  can  exift  without  the  uijlituted 
tfiode,  it  can  undoubtedly  in  any  mode,  or  without  any. 
But  by  what  ch'jinical  art  you  extra*^  the  elftnce  of  bap- 
tifm from  the  moiU,  you  have  not  yet  told  us  We  can- 
not fuppofe  by  ejjence,  that  you  mean  the  holy  ikftres  or 
gracious  difpofitkiis  of  the  fubjedls  of  baptifm  j  for,  from 
the  infant  condition  of  the  greater  part  of  thole  whom 
you  baptize,  it  is  prefumed  there  can  be  no  evidence 
of  their  being  poflefled  of  fuch  holy  tempers.  If  by 
the  ejjcnce  yf  baptifm,  you  mean  the  frni  of  -words  ufed 
in  the  adminiftration  of  it,  then  undoubtedly  that  muft 
be  confidered  valid  where  the  due  form  of  words  is 
ufed,  although  ivatir  be  wholly  left  out  j  M'hich  if  we 
may  credit  hiftory,  has  been  the  cafe  in  feveral  in- 
ftances- 

In  the  dark  ages  of  fuperfiition,  when  new-born  in- 
fants dying  unbaptized  were  doomed  to  eternal  death,  a 
pr'ufl  was  obliged  to  attend  at  the  call  of  a  midwife  j 
and  fometimes,  when  the  infant  was  likely  immediate- 


h2 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


\j  to  expire,  they  not  having  water  prepared,  made  ufe 
of  wine.* 

An  inftance  is  mentioned  by  Nicephorus,  a  Greek 
.hiftorian  of  the  l-tth  century,  of  «'  a  certain  Jew,  who, 
performing  a  journey  in  company  with  Chrlftians,  and 
being  fuddenly  feized  with  a  dangerous  illnefs,  ear- 
neftly  deliied  bip.tilm  at  the  hands  of  his  fellow  travel- 
lers. They  not  having  a  prieft  in  their  company,  and 
being  deftitute  of  water,  were  at  firft  reluftant  j  but  he 
conjuring  them  not  to  deny  him  the  favour,  thev  yield- 
ed to  his  requeft.  On  which,  taking  otF  his  clothes, 
they  fprinkled  him  thrice  with  /and,  inftead  of  water  ; 
adding  that  they  baptized  him  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  fo  on."f  Tiie  fame  author  informs  us,  both  from 
Deylingius  and  Seckendorf,  that  a  little  before  the 
reformation,  there  were,  in  Upper  Saxony,  and  in  fome 
other  places,  thofe  who  taught  and  praftifed  ba^  tifm, 
upon  iicldy  new-born  infants,  with  only  uiing  the  bap- 
tlfmal  form  of  v/ords,  without  the  application  of  water, 
in  any  form  whatever  !  "  To  baptize,  by  fprinkling  a 
few  drops  of  water  ;  to  uaptize,  by  fprinkling  of  fond 
without  any  water  ;  to  baptize,  by  merely  pronouncing 
zform  of  words  ;  what  an  improvement  upon  the  infti- 
tution  of  Chrift  V'% 

«  In  the  twelfth  century,  a  council  in  Ireland  ordaia- 
ed,  that  children  (hould  be  baptized  in  pure  water  by 
trine  immerfion  \  but,  as  a  hiftory  of  fatfts  cannot  be 
coUefled  from  mere  laws,  it  may  be  obferved,  that 
fome  of  the  Irilh  baptized  by  plunging  their  chil- 
dren into  milk,  and  were  fuperftitious  enough  to  imag- 
ine, that  every  part  fo  plunged  became  invulnerable."^ 

I  might  go  on  to  multiply  inftances  of  this  kind,  but 
the  preceding  are  fufficient  to  fliow  the  abfurdity  of 
placing  the  ejfence  of  baptifm  in  a  mere  form  of  words. 

Although  we  would  not  attempt,  or  even  wi(h  to  dic- 
tate to  our  Psedobaptift  brethren  with  regard  to  their 

*  Robinfoirs  Hiftory  ef  Baptilm,  p.  44J. 
f  Apiul  Centur.  Magdeburg.  Cent.  ii.  c.  vi.  p.  8a.  in  Booth** 
Paedo.  Ixani.  p.  144- 

t  Ibid.  p.  145- 
S  Goiolphin'e  Repertorium,  in  Kobinfon't  Hiftoiy. 


The  Mode  if  S{qytljhi. 


79 


pi  aftice  ;  yet  we  ckitn  It  as  a  privilege,  to  judge  for  Our- 
lelvos  what  is  elFential.  Chriftians  in  ditRrent  periods 
have  had  their  ditierent  opinions  of  it.  TertuUian  in 
the  beginning  of  the  third  ceniury,  and  Agrippinus,  and 
Cyprian  after  him,  with  many  more,  rebnptized  thofe 
uiio  came  to  tliem,  not  merely  bec'-ufe  they  had  been 
baptized  by  heretics,  {as  they  were  pleafed  to  call 
thtin)  hut  becaufe  they  lacked  wliat  tliey  coniidered 
effcntial  to  the  ordinance  :  for  they  "  confldered  the 
probity  and  good  faith  of  tlie  perfon  baptized  the  very 
ejince  oi  bapiifm  j  and  if  a  piofelTor  of  Chriftianity 
V?re  sn  unholy  man,  they  adjudged  his  baptifm  like 
his  profeffion,  vain  and  invalid,  and  liimfelf  not  a  weak 
believer  pf  Chriltianity,  but  a  mere  unprincipled  pa- 
gan."* 

^  'I'he  Council  of  Nuy,  in  the  4th  century,  feemed  to 
confider  the  ejjbtce  o{  baptiiin  as  conlifting  in  the  form 
cf  words  ufed  in  the  adminiftraiion  ;  and  accordingly 
dire«Sled,  that  fuch  as  came  to  them  from  the  Paulianifts, 
both  men  and  women,  fliould  be  re-baptized,  becaufe 
the  ordinance  had  not  been  adminiflered  in  the  name 
of  tlie  Trinity  :  while  they  admitted  the  Novatians 
with  only  laying  on  of  hands. 

The  Bohemians  confidered  the  effence  of  baptifm  as 
confiiting  in  the  virtue  or  competency  of  the  adminiftra- 
tor  j  and  confequently  re-baptized  thofe  who  had  every 
other  requiGte  of  baptifm,  only  a  corrupt  adminiflrator. 

The  Greeks  place  the  cjpme  of  baptifm  in  dipping  in 
water  ;  and  had  a  perfon  been  fprinkled  ever  fo  decent- 
.  ly  in  any  period  of  life,  they  would  not  therefore  think 
bim  baptized  ;  becaufe,  in  their  opinion,  to  baptize  is 
to  dip,  and  nothing  eife  f 

The  Baptiit  churches  in  America,  and  thofe  of  Great 
Britain,  Poland,  Lithuania,  Tranfylvania,  and  many 
more,  alt  hold  that  immeriion  in  water,  and  a  perfonal 
proftflion  of  faith  and  repentance,  are  eflential  to  bap- 
tifm. 

But,  Sir,  whatever  you  are  pleafed  to  confider  as  ef- 
fential  to  baptifm,  that  being  omitted,  would  undoubt- 

•  fliid  461. 

f  Vide  Robinloa's  Hiilory  of  Baptifm,  p.  463,  464. 


80  The  Mcde  of  Baptifm. 

edly  invalidate  the  ordinance  in  your  view  ;  at  leaft 
this  is  the  cafe  with  us.  And  why  we  ftiould  thinjjc 
fome  circumftances  eflential  to  baptifm  which  you  do 
not,  will  more  fully  appear  in  the  fequel. 

Many  writers  on  your  fide  of  the  queflion,  have  en- 
deavoured to  prove  Chriftian  baptifm  to  have  had  its 
origin  in  the  wafliing  of  Jewiin  profelytes  \  which  may 
lc?.rcn;ibly  be  confidered  as  a  Jewifli  fakUy  unknown  in 
the  ritual  of  Mofts,  or  any  part  of  the  Old  Teftament. 
A  practice  not  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Jofephus 
and  Philo,  thofe  two  great  hiftorians,  but  is  principally 
taken  from  writers  of  a  much  later  date,  and  particular- 
ly from  the  Yad  Chazaka  of  Maimonides.* 

It  is  worthy  of  obfervation,  that  the  Paedobaptift 
writers  in  this  controverfy,  rarely,  if  ever,  mention  the 
baptifm  adininiftered  by  John,  unlefs  in  fome  negative 
fcnfe,  or  to  anfwer  fome  arguments  drawn  from  it 
againft  their  fentiments.  But  the  wafhing  of  Jewifh 
profelytes  is  frequently  mentioned,  as  an  indifputable 
auxiliary  to  infant  baptifm,  by  many  noted  wrhers  on 
that  fule.f 

A  queliion  here  naturally  fuggefts  itfelf  to  the  mind  ; 
Why  do  Pxdobaptifts  go  back  to  Jewidi  tradition,  or 
forward  to  the  death  of  the  Saviour,  in  order  to  afcer- 
tain  the  origin  of  gofpel  baptifm,  and  cautioufly  omit 
the  firft  accounts  given  of  it  in  the  facred  hiftory  ? 
Perhaps  the  moft  natural  anfwer  is,  becaufe  that  ap- 
pears incongruous  with  their  practice.  It  will  require 
a  large  ftock  of  art  and  ingenuity,  to  perfuade  a  candid 
inquirer  that  John  baptized  any  befide  adults.,  or  admin- 
iftered  the  ordinance  in  any  other  way  than  by  immer- 
fton.  The  particular  places  which  he  chofe  for  the 
conveniency  of  baptizing  muft  afford  a  ftron^  argu- 
ment in  favour  of  immerfion  ;  nor  can  there  be  a  very 
rational  account  given  of  his  conduct  upon  any  other 
footing.    Had  John  adminillered  in  the  prefent  popu- 

'  ^  A-  celebrated  Jtwilb  writer  who  was  the  head  of  a  famous 
ff'hool' in  Egypt,  in  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century. 

f  Dr.  Lijjhtfoot,  Dr.  Wall,  Dr.  Lathnp  of  Weft  Springfield,  and 
others ;  but  fcrupled  by  the  learned  Dr.  B«nfcn,  aad  pofitirely  denied 
by  otiwr*. 


The  Mode  of  Bapt'tfm. 


81 


lar  mode,  I  prefume  a  fingle  cafk  of  water  would  have 
been  fufficient  for  all  he  ever  baptized  ! — and  in  what- 
ever place  people  had  lived,  there  could  have  been  no 
want  of  water  fufficient  to  baptize. 

In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  many 
things  have  been  faid.  One  time  we  are  told,  that 
Jotdan  was  fo  fhallow  that  there  was  not  a  fuflicient 
depth  of  water  to  immerfe,  or  bury  a  perfon  in  •,  again, 
that  the  large  quantity  of  water  was  necefiary,  for  the 
people  and  their  bcal'^s  to  drink  ;  again,  when  John 
baptized  in  Enon  becaufe  there  was  viuch  iva:er  thei-e,  we 
are  told  that  ( ndc.Un  polla* J  many  -waierSy  means  many 
little  fprings,  not  fuflicient  to  immerfe  in.  Now  as  to 
t]:e  firft  of  thefe,  no  perfon  who  is  acquainted  wi!>  that 
ancient  geographical  account  drawn  by  the  pen  ci  infpi- 
ration,  can  polfibly  believe  it  If  any  are  at  a  lofs,  let 
them  obferve,  that  it  was  only  fordable  at  particular 
places,  as  appears  by  Ehud,  Gideon  and  the  Gileadites 
taking  thofe  paflages.-j-  And  alfo  David's  eroding  it 
with  his  family  in  a  ferry-boat.:j:  As  to  the  fecond  ob- 
fervation,  if  tliere  was  much  water,  it  was  neccffary  to 
«<  fupply  the  multitudes  that  came  to  John's  b.jptifm, 
for  drink  for  themfclves,  and  their  horfes  and  camels  }"§ 
if  John's  preaching  had  been  iuch,  that  it  had  broken 
up  the  city  of  Jerufalem,  and  collected  all  the  people 
from  the  region  round  about,  and  they  had  all  gathered 
to  him  in  one  day,  yet  ftill  it  would  not  be  true,  that 
they  needed  a  river  half  as  large  as  Jordan  to  ha\e  fup- 
plied  them  all  with  drink  ;  unlefs  tliey  had  drank  like 
like  Job's  behemoth  !\\  I  do  not  remeniber  ever  to  have 
heard,  that  when  any  large  gathering  of  people  has 
been  propofed,  either  for  a  military  review,  or  for  the 
facred  purpole  of  an  ordination,  that  they  have  once 
mentioned  the  propriety  of  having  it  near  fomc  large 
river  or  fountain  of  water,  in  order  to  accomniodate  the 
people  and  their  horfes  for  drink  ;  and  yet  it  is  highly 
probable,  that  upon  fome  fuch  occafion,  there  have  been 
as  many  together  as  ever  at  one  time  coUe^ited  round 
the  ancient  liapttjf. 

*  Johniii.  I.;.  f  Judge?  iii.  18.  vii.  14.  xii  6.  \  t  SanJ.  lis. 
IJ— 18     $  CUrk't  defence  of  infant  baptifm,  p.  436.      ||  Job  xl.  tj. 


the  Mcde  of 'BtipVifm. 


The  faft  appears  to  be  this,  that  John's  mlniftry  con- 
tinued for  a  confiderable  time,  and  that  the  people  from 
time  to  time  went  out  to  hear  him,  and  often  we  may 
fuppofe  he  had  crowded  aflernbhes.  It  is  faid  he 
'rpreached  in  the  •wildernefs  of  Judea,  but  he  baptized  in 
Jordan. 

Having  thus  mentioned  the  places  chofen  by  JoTin, 
we  Ihall  next  take  notice  of  the  place  where  Philip  bap- 
tized the  Eunuch,  which  you  fuppofe  to  be  -n  matter  6f 
neceflity  rather  than  choice  ;  be  that  as  it  may,  the  ac- 
count informs  us, — thfy  cawe  uuto  a  certain  ivtiter  j  fup- 
pofed  by  fome  to  be  a  fountain  in  a  town  called 
Bethfora,  or  a  river  called  Eleutherus,  which  in  that 
road-rauft  be  pafled  over.* 

Jerom  defcribes  the  tovvn  of  Bethforon,  and  men- 
tions the  fountain  in  it,  in  which  he  faith,.  "  the  AOs 
of  the  apoftles  relate,  that  the  Eunuch  of  queen  Gandace 
was  baptized  here  by  Philip.f 

Borchardus  is  of  opinion,  that  it  was  "  Nehel  Efco?, 
that  is,  The  brook  of  ihe  cltifci-^  from  whence  the  fpies 
carried  the  grapes.  To  the  left  of  this  vnlley,  for  the 
fpace  of  a  mile,  runs  a  river,  in  which  Philip  baptized 
the  Eunuch  of  queen  Candace,  not  far  from  bice- 
lech  "X 

Thus  we  have  traced  ^ohn  atrd  his  candidates,  Hifd 
Philip  and  the' Eunuch,  to  the  water  fide  ;  we  are  now 
prepared  to  confider  the  confeqirent  'aftion.  It  is  faid 
of  John,  that  the  people  who  went  out  to  him,  ivere 
baptizid  of  him  IN  Jordan. — -^nd  Jtf'-U  when  he  was  bap- 
tized, ivent  up flraightimy  OUT  OF  THE  WATER.J  It  is 
itdded  by  Mark — And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  daysy  that 
Jefns  came  from  -Galilee,  and  ivas  baptized  of  John  Vn 
Jordan,  and Jlraight-way  COMING  tJP  OUT  OF  THE  WATirR. 
It  is  faid  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  they  iveut  d'.ivn  both 
INTO  THE  WATER,  bAh  Fhilip  and  the  Eunuch  and  he 
■baptized  him  ;  and  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  tlM  1uatii-y 
'he  tve^i  on  his  way  rejoicing. 

*  Poole's  Contin.  in  loc. 

t  De  locis  Hcbraicis.  fol.  89.6. 

)  Dcfcript.  terrat  Salicl.  e.  9.  iii  Dr.  Gill  'lA  he. 

§  M  tt.  iii.  6.  16.  MiA  i  9. 


Mode  ofBapt  'ifm. 


83 


Now,  Sir,  can  any  perfon  compare  thefe  accounts 
for  a  moment,  and  not  fee  the  manifeft:  agreement  iix 
the  aflioti  of  John  and  Philip.  Let  the  rite  be  per- 
formed in  what  mode  foever,  it  is  evident  it  was  the 
fame  in  the  people  whom  John  baptized,  and  in  the 
Saviour,  and  in  the  Eunuch.  You  obferve  in  this  laft 
inftance,  there  is  *  no  account  of  any  particular  mode 
■whatever.'  I  muft  take  the  liberty  here  again  to  diflent 
from  you  ;  for,  I  conclude  it  is  a  very  particular  ac- 
count of  the  mode  of  plunging.  Were  you  to  be  in- 
formed by  a  perfon  of  your  acquaintance,  that  he  faw  a 
minirter  who  was  a  ftranger  to  him,  go  down  into  the 
water  with  a  candidate,  and  that  he  baptized  him,  and 
that  they  came  up  out  of  the  water,  I  am  perfuaded,. 
without  hefitation,  you  would  conclude  that  they  were 
Baptills  ;  and  the  account  here  given  would  decide  the 
point  in  your  mind,  and  perhaps  in  any  other  perfon's, 
in  what  mode  the  ordinance  was  adminiftered.  Again, 
if  inftead  of  faying  they  went  down  both  into  the  water, 
it  had  been  faid  that  the  candidate  afcended,  or  was 
carried  up  the  pulpit  ftairs,  (which  is  now  the  cuftom 
in  many  places)  it  would  affoi-d  a  ftrong  prefumption  in 
favour  of  affuiion. 

You  obferve  the  inftance  abovementioned  is  the  only 
one,  *  recorded  in  fcripture,  of  going  to  a  river,  pond, 
pool,  or  brook,  to  baptize  with  Chriflian  baptifni;'  Sir, 
you  will  pleafe  alfo  to  obferve,  that  this  is  the  only  in- 
ftance recorded,  after  the  death  of  the  Saviour,  in  -vvhich 
the  a£l  of  baptizing  is  defcribcd  ;  and  here  it  evidently 
defcribes  iramerfton. 

But  you  fay,  <  If  we  admit,  according  to  our  tranfla- 
tion,  that  they  both  of  them  went  down  i/ito  the 
water,  this  is  no  evidence  that  eitber  of  them  were 
plunged  all  under  water.  You  will  not  fuppofe,  that 
this  text  is  a  proof  that  Philip  went  all  untler  water. 
But  \vhy  not  ?  If  going  into  the  water  proves  immerfion, 
it  proves  that  bjih  were  imiuoril'd  ;  for  they  went  down 
both  into  the  water.'  'j'o  fome  of  your  readers,  this 
criticifm  does  not  ..iipeir  in  t:ic  mujIe  logicjil  lH-;iic  j  for 
no  perfjn  ev^r  fuppofed,  that  for  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
to  go  into  tiie  wiavr  up  to  the  kru:es  or  loins  would  be- 


84 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


to  Immerfe  either  ;  but  when  they  had  got  into  the 
water,  there  was  evidently  fomething  done  to  one,  that 
was  not  done  to  the  other  ;  i.  e.  Philip  baptized  or  immer- 
fed  ihe  Eunuch ;  but  he  did  not  baptize  PhiHp.  Therefore, 
for  the  fake  of  inimerfing  the  Eunuch,  they  went  both 
into  the  water,  as  that  could  not  be  confiftently  per- 
formed without.  In  this  light  their  going  info  the  nuater 
will  appear  rational  but  in  every  other  view,  totally 
inconliftent.  Had  the  objeft  been  only  to  fpr'uihU  the 
Eunuch,  this  could  have  been  performed  at  the  water 
fide,  without  going  down  into  it  ;  yea,  probably  it 
might  have  been  done  decently  in  the  chariot  ;  for  it 
is  moft  reafoiiable  to  fuppofe,  that  a  porfon  of  his  dif- 
tinftion  and  equipage  would  not  travel  that  defert  coun- 
try, without  fome  veflels  to  obtain  and  convey  water, 
when  he  came  to  it  ;  unlefs  he  meant  to  ferve  himfelf 
in  the  way  that  Gideon's  men  did. 

Upon  the  whole,  does  it  not  appear  to  be  the  moft 
eafy  and  natural  conflrudion  of  the  paffage,  to  fuppofe 
the  bsptifm  of  the  Eunuch  to  be  an  immerfion  I  might 
here,  if  neceffary,  produce  a  cloud  of  witnefTes  from 
Pxdobaptilt  expofitors,  full  to  my  purpofo  ;  but  I  omit 
them  for  the  prefent.  And  although  I  would  not  ad- 
drefs  you  in  that  full  ftrain  of  affurance,  which  the  great 
apoftie  did  king  Agrippa,  yet  I  may  modefily  inquire, 
Believeft  thm  mt  theje  things  thyfelf  ?  y  a,  1  dctibt  mt  but 
that  believeft. 

You  take  notice  of  this  as  a  fingle  inflance,  in  which 
Chriftlan  baptifm  has  the  appennmce  of  immerfion. 
But,  Sir,  would  you  think  it  rcafonable,  that  in  every 
inftance  where  it  is  faid  that  perfons  were  baptized, 
that  all  the  circumftances  relating  to  the  a/?,  fhould  be 
particularly  defcribed  ?  Surely  you  cculd  not.  You 
might  as  reafonably  fuppofe,  that  where  cirairrnfion  is 
mentioned,  and  the  ail  not  formally  defcribed,  that  it 
was  performed  upon  a  different  part,  or  in  a  different 
way  from  what  the  in.flitution  pointed  out,  as,  that  bap- 
tifm was  adminiftered  in  a  dtjfertnt  mode  from  the  fpeci- 
niens  given  of  it. 

It  may  be  profitable  here  to  refieft  upon  the  fubjecl  a 
moment,  and  put  a  few  circumftances  together,  whith 
may  aflbrd  Ibme  light  in  the  prefent  cafe. 


Tf:e  Mode  of  Baptifm, 


.  When  John,  that  bright  morning  ftar,  appeared,  to 
give  knowledge  of  lalvation,  he  came  to  prepare  the 
way,  and  proclaim  the  approach  of  the  Sun  of  right- 
eoufnefs.    In  order  to  this,  he  came  preaching  repent- 
ance for  the  remiflion  of  fins,  and  baptizing  with  (or 
in*)  water.    The  manner  in  which  John  baptized  is  fo 
particularly  defcribed,  that  very  few  Chriftians,  of  any 
denomination,  have  doubted  its  being  by  immerfion. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  inftitution  ;  therefore  it 
was  proper  to  defcribe  it.    The  aft  was  performed  in 
Jordan.    But,  as  the  Baptill  had  informed  the  people, 
that  there  would  one  come  after  him  mightier  than  he, 
I  who  fhould  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  and  fire  : 
'  therefore,  to  avoid  the  danger  of  a  miftake  which  might 
.  pollibly  be  made  from  this,  in  fuppofing  that  Chriil, 
when  he  came,  would  introduce  a  different  mode  of  bap- 
\  tifin  from  what  John  praftifed,  we  are  exprefsly  told, 

(not  only  that  he  was  baptized  by  John,  but  that  it  was 
adminiftered  in  the  fame  way  to  him,  as  to  the  people, 
j  He,  alfo,  "was  baptized  in  Jordany  and  came  up  Jlrai^httvay 
I  out  of  it. 

After  Jefus  had  pafled  in  triumph  through  the  dark 
1  domains  of  death,  he  came  to  his  diiciples  vefted  ^ith 
I  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  and,  enlarging  >their 
!  commiflion,  lent  them  to  preach  to  Gentiles,  as  well 
■  as  Jews  ;  with  an  exprefs  command,  to  baptize  in  the 
name  of  the  triune  God.    Now,  left  we  fhould  look  for 
fome  alteration  in  the  mode  of  baptifm,  it  is  again  ex- 
emplified, and  here  we  fee  it  to  be  the  fame  as  before  ; 
'  Philip  and  the  candidate  go  down  into  the  water,  he 
is  baptized,  and  they  come  up  again  out  of  it.  Thus 
we  iee  the  baptifm  adminiftered  by  John,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Chriftian  dilpenfation,  before  Chrill  be- 
gan his  perfonal  miniftry  ;  and  that  adminiftered  td 
Chrift  himfelf ;  and  that  adminiftered  after  he  gave 
the  great  coraraifiion,  as  to  the  modey  were  uniformly 
the  fame. 

From  this,  we  think  it  rational  to  conclude,  that 
ihofe  inftances  of  baptifm  mentioned  in  the  New  Tef- 

*  The  prepofition  m  might  perhaps  be  better  rendered  ir,  at  it  !« 
Mate.  lii.  41.  aad  many  otiur  places. 


86 


The  Mode  of  Baptijm. 


tament,  where  the  aft  is  not  defcribed,  were  performed 
in  the  fame  manner  as  thefe  were,  of  which  an  account 
is  given. 

Incompetent  as  this  evidence  may  appear  to  you,  we 
think  it  a  fufficient  anfwer  to  your  queftion,  wherein 
you  aik,  by  what  authority  we  make  immerfion  efiential 
to  baptifm,  &c.  I  would  alfo  aflure  you,  that  whenever 
you  will  make  out  as  much  proof  from  fcripture  for 
fpr'nikling,  as  being  an  infiituted  mode  of  baptifm,  as 
has  now  been  produced  in  favour  of  imnu'ijlcnj  I  will 
lay  down  my  pen,  and  forever  drop  the  difpute. 

Although  what  has  been  offered  may  be  confidered 
.^s  ample  proof  of  the  queftion  in  difpute,  yet  being 
defirous  of  giving  you  full  fatisfaftion,  I  fliall  proceed 
to  lay  before  you  one  confideration  more,  which  ap- 
pears to  us  of  confiderable  weight  in  the  prefent  cafe  ; 
and  that  is,  the  native  hgnification  of  the  Greek  verb 
(bapf'iT,?)  to  baptize^  which  we  fuppofe  neceflarily  requires 
dipping.  We  are  fully  fenfible,  at  the  fame  time,  that 
this  fenfe  has  been  controverted  by  many  men  of  emi- 
nent abilities  ;  notwithftanding,  we  think  the  evidence 
grently  preponderates  in  our  favour.  Nor  Hiall  we 
thii.i;  it  a  difficult  tafk  to  prove  the  fenfe  for  which  we 
plead,  from  Pa;dobaptifts  themfelves  ;  and  that  too, 
from  ibme  as  learned  and  judicially  as  any,  whofe  names 
adorn  the  biographical  page.  This  kind  of  evidence  I 
conclude  you  can  have  no  reafonable  objcftion  to,  be- 
<aufe  you  cannot  fufpeft  them  of  any  dclign  againft 
themfelves,  nor  will  they  make  any  conccffions  to  I'enti- 
ments  which  they  oppofe,  further  than  truth  obhges 
them  to  ;  therefore,  I  may  fay  of  iheir  evidence  in  the 
prefent  cafe,  as  David  did  of  Goliath's  fword,  there  is 
none  like  it. 

I  may  have  occafion  hereafter  to  mention  fome  wri- 
ters of  a  much  earlier  date,  bat  I  fhall  here  begin  with 
Luther.  In  his  tranflation  of  the  New  Teftament,  he 
has  rendered  the  Greek  word  to  baptize  by  the  Ger- 
man tatifen ;  and  in  his  works  he  hath  exprefsly  de- 
clared, that  the  baptifmal  verb  tauj'en,  fignifies  to  im- 
ijicrfe,  or  to  plunge  into  tlie  water.*    Thus  Matt.  iii.  1. 


•  op.  De  bap.  in  Robipfon's  Hift.  Bap.  p.  441, 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


87 


Zi/Jer  zeit  kam  Johannes  der  tauffer  — In  thofe  days 
came  John  the  dtpper.  To  this  we  may  add  the  tclli- 
mony  of  the  Genevan  oracle,  Calvui,  who  fays,  "  The 
word  baptize  fignifies  to  dip  5  and  it  is  certain  that  the 
manner  of  dipping  was  ufed  of  the  ancient  churcli."* 
Shall  I  add  to  this,  the  teiiimony  of  that  celebrated 
profelTor  of  divinity,  Witfius  ?  "  It  cannot  be  denied 
(faith  he)  that  the  native  fignification  of  the  word  haptein 
and  bnptiTchi^  is,  to  plunge,  to  dip.'""f  Full  to  the  fame 
point  are  alfo  the  words  of  Vitringa — "  The  z€i  of  bap- 
tizing is  the  immerlion  of  believers  in  water.  This 
expreflcs  the  force  of  the  word.  Thus  alfo  it  was  per- 
formed by  Chrilt  and  his  apofi.les."| 

if  you  pleafe,  we  will  now  look  at  the  ancient  Hel- 
vetia confeffion,  firft  written  in  the  year  1536,  by  or 
under  the  direction  of  Bucer,  ten  years  before  the  death 
of  Luther,  and  afterwards  publiflied  again  by  the  paf- 
•tors  of  Zurich,  in  1566  ;  in  which  we  have  the  follow- 
ing unequivocal  declaration  :  "Baptifm  was  inftitutcd 
and  confecrated  by  God,  and  the  firft  that  baptized  was 
John,  who  DIPPED  Christ  in  the  v/ater  in  Jordan  ; 
from  him  it  came  to  the  apoftles,  who  alfo  did  baptize 
with  water." 

The  confeffion  of  Saxony,  written  by  Melanclhon, 
in  the  year  1551,  perfedtly  agrees  with  the  above:  I 
will  now  tranfcribe  it.  "  Baptifm  is  an  entire  action, 
to  wit,  a  DIPPING,  and  the  pronouncing  of  thefe  words, 
/  baptize  thee  in  ike  name  of  ike  Futher^''  and  fo  on.|| 
Thefe  two  laft  are  not  to  be  confidered  merely  as  the 
teftimony  of  two  men,  or  two  particular  churches,  bat 
as  including  a  number  of  churches  in  two  large  dirtri<Sts. 

As  Dr.  Collins  was  jufdy  efteemed  a  learned  and 
critical  expofltor,  you  will  perhaps  be  willing  to  hear 
his  opinion  in  the  prefent  caie.  "  A  great  part  (faith 
he)  of  thofe  who  went  out  to  hear  John  were  baptized^ 
that  is,  dipped  in  Jordan.'"  '<  To  be  baptized  is  to  be 
dipped  in  ivater  ;  metaphorically,  to  be  plunged  in  afllic- 

Inflitut.  Chrift.  Rciig.  1.  iv.  c.  xv.  §  19. 
f  CEconom.  Foed.  1.  iv.  c.  xvi.  §  13. 
4  Aphor.fmi  San(ft.  Theolog.  Aphori.'".  884.  ir  Biioth. 
j|  H«raiony  of  ConfclTions,  p.  395,  404. 


ss 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


tions  :  I  am,  faith  Chrift,  to  be  overwhelmed  with  fuf- 
ferings  and  afliiftions."*  To  this  we  may  add  the  tef- 
timony  of  Mr.  Daniel  Rogers  :  «  None  (faith  he)  of 
old  were  wont  to  be  fprinkled  ;  and  I  confefs  myfelf 
unconvinced  by  demonftratiort  from  fcripture  for  infant 
fprinkling.  It  ought  to  be  the  church's  part  to  cleave 
to  the  inftitution,  which  is  dipping  and  he  betrays  the 
church,  whofe  officer  he  is,  to  a  difordeily  error,  if  he 
cleave  not  to  the  inftitution,  which  is  to  dip.  That  the 
rninifter  is  to  dip  in  water  as  the  mecteft  acV,  the  word 
lapiizo  notes  it.  For  the  Greeks  wanted  not  other 
vs-ords  to  exprefs  any  other  a<Sl  befide  dipping,  if  the 
inftitution  could  bear  it."  «<  To  dip  therefore  is  exceed- 
ing malerirJ  to  the  ordinance  j  which  was  the  ufage  of 
old,  without  exception  of  countries,  hot  or  cold."f 

The  above  quotations  are  all-  made  from  Pacdobaptift 
writers,  to  which  I  M'ilh  to  add  one  obfervation  frona 
a  late  learned  hiftorian  :  <«  'A  lingulft  (fays  he)  deter- 
mines himfelf  by  his  own  knowledge  of  the  Greek 
language,  and  an  illiterate  man,  by  the  beft  evidence  he 
can  obtain  from  the  teftimony  of  others,  whom  by  his 
condition  he  is  obliged  to  truft. 

«*  To  the  latter  it  is  fufficient  to  obferve,  that  the 
word  is  confelTedly  Greek,  that  native  Greeks  muft 
underftand  their  own  language  better  than  foreigners, 
and  that  they  have  always  baptized,  and  do  yet  baptize, 
by  immerfion.  This  is  an  authority  for  the  meaning 
of  the  word  infinitely  preferable  to  that  of  European 
lexicographers  ;  fo  that  a  man,  who  is  obliged  to  truft 
human  teftimony,  and  who  baptizes  by  immerfion,  be- 
caufe  the  Greeks  do,  under ftands  a  Greek  word  exact- 
ly as  the  Greeks  themfelves  underftand  it ;  and  in  this 
cafe  the  Greeks  are  unexceptionable  guides,  and  their 
praftice  is  in  this  inftance  fafe  ground  of  acl:ion."| 

This  laft  remark  is  confinr.ed  by  Dr.  Wall,  who  aflures 
us  that  "  the  Greek  church,  in  all  the  branches  of  it,  in 
Europe,  Afia,  Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  has  always  prefcrved 

•  Poole's  Contin.  of  Annot.  on  Matt.  iii.  6.  and  xx.  ax. 
\  Treatife  of  the  two  Sac.  Part  I.  chap.  v.  and  viii.  in  Booth's  Pscdt- 
baptift  Exam.  p.  13. 

I  Robinfon't  Hiftory  of  baj-tifni,  p.  c, 


f  The  Mode  of  Baptlfm.  89 

the  ciif^om  of  dipping  infants  in  baptifm,  that  were  hi 
health,  and  able  to  bear  it."*  By  the  term  always,  we 
muft  underftand  from  the  time  when  thej-  firft  began  to 
baptize  infants. 

I  will  not  for  the  prefent  trouble  you  with  any  more 
quotations  from  Pacdobaptifts,  but  will  hold  myieif  en- 
gaged to  produce  five  times  as  many,  whenever  thei-e 
lhall  be  a  reafonable  demand.  I  conclude,  if  human 
teftimony  can  eftabliih  any  point,  we  muft  allow,  from 
the  dilinterelled  nature  of  the  evidence  now  confider- 
ed,  that  the  native  fignification  of  the  Greek  verb  bap- 
tizo,  (which  muft  determine  the  proper  fenfe  of  our 
Englilh  word  to  baptize)  to  be  fairly  fettled. 

Should  it  be  objefted  that  any,  or  all  the  pcrfons 
above  quoted,  held,  notwithftanding,  that  baptifm 
might  be  lawfully  adminiftered,  either  by  pouring  or 
fpr'mkling,  in  ordinary,  or  at  leaft  in  particular  cal'es  ; 
this  would  by  no  means  invalidate  their  evidence,  with 
refpecl  to  the  point  in  hand  ;  it  would  only  prove 
them  inconfiftent  with  themfelves,  and  that  they  fii;.--. 
pofed  that  they  had  a  right  to  depart  from  the  inltita- 
ted  way,  and  adopt  one  which,  in  their  view,  appeared 
better  calculated  to  ferve  the  Interefts  of  religion. 

Should  we  fuppofe  a  number  of  perfons,  of  eftablilh- 
ed  veracity,  to  appear  before  a  court  of  judicature,  to 
give  evidence  upon  oath  in  a  certain  cafe,  and  they 
Ihould  all  jointly  agree  in  confirming  a  particular  faft  ^ 
but  at  the  fame  time  fiiould  add,  that  it  was  their  opinijn, 
that  there  might  be  other  circumftances  connefted  with 
the  attefted  fa£l,  which,  if  true,  would  be  equally  im- 
portant to  the  cafe  in  hand,  although  they  could  not 
be  pofitively  proved  ; — no  perfon  would  be  at  a  lofs 
how  to  decide  a  cafe  of  this  nature,  nor  would  he  put 
this  fuppofititious  evidence  upon  an  equal  footing  with 
Jlber  fa£ly  unjefs  he  were  governed  by  intereft  or  preju- 
dice. 

Thus,  Sir,  we  have  traced  the  Mode  of  baptifm  tip 
to  its  origin :  and  have  found  it  firft  in  the  hands  of 
John  the  Baptift,  who  had  his  commillion  from  heaven  f 

•  Defence  of  the  hiftory  of  infant  bapiiiin,'p.  'i"48. 
t  John  i,  6, 
I  2 


90 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


He  adminlftered  it  to  the  Saviour,  and  probably  to  the 
difciples,*  who  by  virtue  of  the  great  commiflion  bap- 
tized others  ;  and  wherever  the  aSl  is  defcribed,  it  cer- 
tainly has  the  appearance  of  immerfion. 

We  have  alfo  heard  the  teftimony  of  feveral  cele- 
brated writers,  in  eftablifliing  the  meaning  of  the  word 
to  baptize.  Thefe  declarations,  taken  from  Paedobap- 
tifts,  muft  always  remain  in  our  favour,  notwithftancl- 
ing  all  that  may  be  faid  of  their  praclifing  in  a  differoat 
way. 

Hence  we  conceive  that  immerfion,  as  the  appointed 
mode  of  baptifm,  has  been  fairly  made  out,  both  from 
fcripture  and  reafon,  and  from  the  full  concellions  of 
the  writers  upon  your  own  fide.  And  if  what  has  now 
been  faid,  fliould  not  convince  you  or  any  of  your  breth- 
ren, yet  it  will  undoubtedly  fuggeit  fome  of  our  reafons 
for  differing  from  you  in  our  praftice. 

If  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  of  baptifm  be  in- 
different, then  the  difpute  is  at  an  end  ;  but,  if  it  be 
irnportant,  the  necelEty  of  one  condemns  the  other. 
But  to  me  it  appears  inconliftent  to  fuppofe,  that  there 
can  be  a  poiitive  command,  and  the  mode  of  our  obedi- 
ence be  indifferent  ;  for  this  at  once  takes  off  the  au- 
thority of  the  command.  Yet  here.  Sir,  we  have  not 
the  happinefs  to  be  agreed  in  opinion  :  for  you  fuppofe 
the  matter  to  be  indifferent,  and  attempt  to  illuftrate 
it  by  the  pofture  of  the  body  in  prayer.  But  a  mo- 
ment's refleftion  muft  convince  you,  that  the  cafes  are 
not  parallel.  The  pofture  of  the  body  makes  no  part 
of  prayer,  any  more  than  the  place  does  where  the  man 
is  when  he  prays  :  for  prayer  is  properly  a  mental  ex- 
crcife,  and  not  immediately  connefted  with  any  pofition 
of  the  body  whatever.  But  this  can  by  no  means  be 
laid  of  the  application  of  water  in  baptifin  :  for  this 
makes  a  material  part  of  the  ordinance,  and  is-elfential 
to  its  very  exiftence. 

If  the  inftitution  require  no  more  than  to  fprinkle  a 
few  drops  of  water  in  the  face,  any  perfon  muft  be 
ftrangeVy  fuperftitious  to  be  immerfed.  And  on  the 
ctlver  hand,  if  it  does  really  require  immerfion,  then 


*  Chap,  iii,  z^. 


The  Mode  of  Bapiifrn. 


91 


iK.jfe  who  only  fprinkle  muft  fall  materially  fliort,  and 
have  Icarcely  the  lhadow  of  the  ordinance.  To  fup- 
yoit  that  fprinkling,  pouring,  or  immerfion,  are  all  in- 
different, is  in  to  fuppofe  that  nothing  is  command- 
ed ;  or  at  leaft  no  more  than  fprinkling.*  When  per- 
fons  believe  this,  there  is  an  end  to  immerfion  :  for  men 
are  not  generally  fond  of  doing  more  than  is  required. 
This,  Sir,  your  practice  demonftrates.  You  believe 
either  vray  anfwers  the  inftitution  ;  but  you,  with  other 
Fxdobaptifts  in  general,  choofe  fprinkling  ;  I  think  it 
probable  that  I  fhould  do  the  fame,  could  I  be  convin- 
ced that  your  views  were  right.  It  is  alfo  probable, 
tliat  John  the  Baptift,  Chrift  aod  his  apoftles,  Philip, 
?.nd  the  ancient  Chriftians,  had  they  viewed  the  matter 
ill  the  fame  light  which  you  do,  would  have  invariably 
adiuiniftered  it  by  fprinkling  :  for  there  could  have 
b'^en  no  poffible  occafion  which  would  have  required 
immerfion,  in  cafe  the  other  way  would  equally  well 
expi-efs  the  defign. 

From  a  careful  retrofpe£tion  of  the  arguments  made 
ufe  of  in  the  courfe  of  this  lengthy  Sedlion,  the  candid 
will  be  able  to  judge,  whether  we  are  unreafonable,  in 
faying  that  immerfwn  is  eflential  to  the  right  adminiftra- 
tion  of  the  ordinance.  That  I  have  not  exaggerated 
fober  faft,  will  be  made  evident  by  a  quotation  which  I 
ftiall  now  fubjoin.  Dr.  Wall,  who  has  before  beeti 
mentioned,  was  fo  highly  efteemed  by  the  Englifli  cler- 
gy for  his  learning  and  zeal  in  defending  infant  baptifm, 
that  in  a  general  convocation,  Feb.  9,  1706,  they  palTed 
the  following  vote  ;  "  Ordered,  that  the  thanks  of  this 
houfe  be  given  to  Mr.  Wall,  Vicar  of  Shoreham  in 
Kent,  for  the  learned  and  excellent  book  he  hath  lately 

*The  three  terms  in  d!fj)ute  are  all  ufeJ  in  Lev.  ix.  6,  7.  in  the  fol- 
lowing  manner  :  "  And  the  prieft  fliall  (kapfii)  dip  his  finger  in  the 
blood,  and  (projiranei)  fprinkle  of  the  blood  fevcn  times  before  the 
Lord  ;  and  ihall  (etcbeei\J pour  all  the  blood  of  the  bullock  at  the  b«t- 
tom  of  the  altar." 

That  thefe  rites  were  not  the  fame  and  to  be  ufed  indifferently,  the 
following  familiar  tranfpofition  will  abundantly  fhow  :  And  the  prieft 
fliall  pour  his  finger  in  the  blood,  and  fliall  dip  of  the  blood  feveu  times 
before  the  Lord  ;  and  fliall  fprinkle  all  the  blood  at  the  bottom  of  the 
altar. 

I  SeptuagintaJn  loc. 


92 


The  Mode  of  Baptifnu 


written  concerning  infant  bnptifm."  Yet  notwithftand- 
ing  this  gentleman's  profound  learning,  and  all  the  ad- 
vantages he  had  derived  from  his  painful  refearches  into 
the  remoteft  depths  of  antiquity,  to  procure  materials 
of  defence, — he  was  obliged  to  acknowledge,  that  Dr. 
Gale  had  drawn  him  into  a  difpute  upon  the  mode  of 
baptifm,  "  wherein  (faith  he)  he  knew,  that  the  exam- 
ples of  fcripture  and  other  antiquity,  and  the  full  per- 
fualion  of  that  people,  and  of  all  the  Eaftern  church  to 
this  day,  is  on  his  fide  ;  and  I  had  the  difadvan- 
tage  to  plead  for  a  way  of  baptifm,  of  which  the 
beft  I  could  fay,  was,  that  it  was  fufficient  for  the 
eflence  of  baptifm  ;  but  could  not  deny  the  other  (ex- 
cept in  the  cafe  of  danger  of  health)  to  be  the  fitteft."* 
It  muft  be  acknowledged,  that  Dr.  Wall  was  under 
moft  painful  difadvantages  in  vindicating  his  caufe  : 
for  he  had  not  only  to  oppofe  the  learned  Dr.  Gale,  but 
the  full  convi(Stion  of  his  own  mind,  that  fcripture  ex- 
ample, afl5  the  whole  current  of  antiquity,  were  againft 
him. 

Upon  the  whole,  this  much  is  certain,  that  there  is 
neither  exprefs  command,  nor  example,  either  in  the 
law  of  Mofes,  or  in  the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift,  to  fprinkle 
water  upon  new-born  infants  as  an  initiating  feal  of  any 
covenant  whatever .f  Therefore,  we  may  fay  with  Dr. 
Whitby,  whofe  words  fliall  clofe  this  Seftion — '<  The 
argument  is  always  good  :  We  read  of  no  fuch  doftrine 
in  the  fcripture  ;  therefore  it  neither  is,  nor  can  be,  any 
article  of  faith,  becaufe  we  have  no  other  rule  of  faith 
befides  the  holy  fcriptures.":}: 

*  Defence  of  the  hiftory  of  infant  baptifm,  p.  404- 
f  The  male  children  of  the  Jew5  were  to  be  circumcifed  on  the 
eighth  day,  by  di"ine  appointment ;  but  paft  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  the  honeft  Bi/hop  Pidus  wrote  to  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  to  know 
whether  child»cn  might  be  baptized  beforj  they  were  eight  days  old; 
for  by  his  Bible  h;  could  not  tell.  Nor  could  C7priai\  tell,  without 
firft  confulting  a  Council  upon  the  fubjeft.  A  prelumptive  evidence 
that  the  buCnefs  was  new.  Primit.  Chrift.  p.  193.  and  Robinfon'j 
hiftory,  p.  284. 

\  Annot.  on  Matt.  vi.  9. 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


93 


SECTION  V. 

i/'Y'  Mode  of  Baptifm  farther  illnfrated,  from  the  Pracfice 
of  the  primitive  Chrifiaiis  ;  and  the  ?>lanner  in  which  it 
•was  reduced  from  Immerfion  to  Spritikiirigy  briefly  point' 
ed  out. 

Much  has  been  already  faid  upon  the  mode  of 
baptifm  ;  but  as  it  is  evidently  a  conftituent  part  in  the 
prefent  difpute,  it  appears  necelTury  to  fet  it  in  the  clear- 
eft  light.  Hence  we  fhall  proceed  to  conlider  the 
praftice  of  the  ancient  Chriftians. 

The  primitive  Chriftians  not  only  underftood  the 
word  in  the  fenfe  for  which  we  plead,  but  they  prac- 
lifed  accordingly.  This  has  been  touched  upon  already, 
but  will  be  more  fully  illuftrated  in  what  follows. 

Dr.  Cave,  who  wrote  about  a  hundred  and  twenty 
years  ago,  (not  particularly  as  a  difputant,  but  as  a  hif- 
torian)  in  defcribing  the  religion  of  the  fathers,  after 
mentioning  feveral  things  which  they  conne£ted  with 
baptifm,  he  faith  ;  «  The  aftion  having  proceeded  thus 
far,  the  party  to  be  baptized  was  wholly  im;T:ii fd  or 
put  under  water,  which  was  the  almoft  univerfal  cuftom 
of  thofe  times,  whereby  they  did  more  notably  and  iig- 
nificantly  exprefs  the  three  great  ends  and  effects  of  bap- 
tifm ;  for  as  in  immerfion  there  are  in  a  manner  three 
feveral  a£ts,  xhe putting  tViQ  perfon  into  the  water,  his 
abiding  there  for  a  little  time,  and  his  rfng  again. ;  fo 
by  thefe  were  reprefented  ChrfYs  death,  burial,  and 
refurrcciion  to  a  nev/^  courfe  of  life.  By  the  perfon's 
being  put  into  the  water,  was  lively  reprefented  the 
putting  off  the  body  of  the  fins  of  the  flefh  ;  by  his 
abode  under  it,  which  was  a  kind  of  burial  in  the  water, 
his  entering  upon  a  ftate  of  death  or  mortification  ; 
like  as  Chrift  remained  for  fome  time  under  the  ftate 
or  power  of  death  ;  therefore  as  many  as  are  baptized 
into  Chrift,  are  faid  to  be  baptized  into  his  death,  and 
to  be  buried  with  him  by  baptifm  into  death,  that  the 
old  man  being  crucified  with  him,  the  body  of  fin 
might  be  deftroyed,  thathcnc^orthhe  might  not  ferve 


94 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


fin  ;  for  he  that  Is  dead  is  freed  from  fin,  as  the  apoflle 
clearly  explains  the  meaning  of  this  rite.  And  then,  by 
his  emerfion,  or  rifingup  out  of  the  water,  was  fignified 
his  entering  upon  a  new  courfe  of  life."* 

The  words  of  Mr.  Locke  are  very  fimilar  to  the 
above  ;  "  We  Chriftians  (iaith  he)  who  by  baptifm 
were  admitted  into  all  the  kingdom  and  church  of 
Chrift,  were  baptized  into  a  limilitude  of  his  death  ; 
we  did  own  feme  kind  of  death  by  being  buried  under. 
•WATER  ;  which  being  buried  with  him,  i.  e.  in  con- 
formity to  his  burial,  as  a  confelTIon  of  our  being  dead, 
was  to  fignify,  that  as  Chrift  was  raifed  up  from  the 
dead  into  a  glorious  life  with  his  Father,  even  fo  we, 
being  raifed  from  our  typical  death  and  burial  in  bap- 
tifm, fhould  lead  a  new  fort  of  life,  wholly  different 
from  our  former,  in  fome  approaches  towards  that 
heavenly  life  that  Chrift  is  rifen  to."f 

Mr.  Burkit  alfo,  fully  acknowledges  this  to  be  the 
pracStice  of  the  ancient  church,  when  he  fays,  "  The 
apoftle  no  doubt  alludes  to  the  ancient  manner  and  way 
of  baptizing  perfons  in  thofe  hot  countries,  which  was 
by  imnierfion,  or  putting  them  under  water  for  a  time, 
and  then  raifmg  them  up  again  out  of  the  water  ;  which 
rite  had  alfo  a  myftical  fignification,  reprefenting  the 
burial  of  our  old  man  fin  in  us,  and  our  refurreflion  to 
newnefs  of  life."J  Mr.  Poole's  words  are  nearly  ver- 
batim.§ 

But,  Sir,  you  are  fenfible  that  very  few  expofitors 
have  written  concerning  the  prafticc  of  the  firft  Chrif- 
tian  church,  who  have  not  acknowledged,  that  it  was 
the  almoft  universal  cuftom  of  thofe  times  to  baptize 
by  immerfion.  This  fa<St  will  nnnifcft  itfelf  as  we  pro- 
ceed. 

You  will  undoubtedly  recollecl,  that  the  firft  inftan- 
ces  to  be  met  with  in  ancient  hiftory,  wherein  they 
pretended  to  bapt'rze  otherwife  than  by  immerfion, 
were   in  cafes  of  fuppofed  necejfity ;   and  confidered 

*  Primitive  Chrirtiinity,  Part  I.  chap.  x.  p.  20j,  204-  EJ't- 
f  Paraphrafc  On  Rom.  vi.  3,  4. 
\  F.xpofitory  Notes  on  Rom,  vi.  4. 
§  I'oalc  in  Inc. 


The  Mode  of  Bnpfifm. 


95 


even  in  thofe  cafes  as  not  fully  anfwering  the  inftitu- 
tion. 

The  baptizing  of  ftck  or  dyitig  perfons  by  affufion, 
originated  in  the  third  century*  (a  period  fruitful  of  re- 
ligious inventions)  and  had  its  foundation  in  error. 

Several  things  united  in  bringing  it  into  exiftence  : 
as,  1.  Mifconftruing  that  paflage  of  the  apoftle  where 
it  is  faid,  If  they  -who  have  once  been  ciilighteiied,  (which  at 
this  time,  by  many,  was  underftood  of  baptifm)yZ't7// 
fall  aivay,  it  is  iivpofftble  to  reneiu  them  again  to  repentance. 
This  led  Conftantine,  and  many  other  ferious  perfons, 
to  delay  their  baptifm  until  near  the  clofe  of  life.  2. 
Another  fentiment  equally  erroneous  arofe,  from  a  mil- 
application  of  the  words  of  Chrift — Except  a  wan  he 
born  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Thus  on  the  one  hand,  they  fearing  a 
fatal  relapfe  after  baptifm,  and  on  the  other,  (as  Dr. 
Cave  obierves)  "  Not  daring  to  pafs  into  another  world 
without  this  bndge  of  their  initiation  into  Chrift,  they 
prefently  fignified  tlieir  earneft  ilefire  to  be  baptized, 
which  was  accordingly  done,  as  well  as  the  circumftan- 
ces  of  a  fick  bed  would  permit.  Thefe  were  called 
Clinici,  (of  whom  there  is  frequent  mention  in  the  an- 
cient writers  of  the  church)  becaufe  baptized  as  they 
lay  along  in  their  beds."  "  This  (continues  tJie  Doc- 
tor) was  accounted  a  lefs  foknm  and  perfect  kind  of 
baptiim  ;  partly  becaufe  it  was  done  not  by  innncrfion, 
but  by  fprinkling,  partly  becaufe  perfons  were  fuppoletl 
at  fuch  a  time  to  dcfirc  it  chiefly  out  of  fear  of  death."-|- 
riiis  kind  of  baptifm  was  coiilidered  fo  imperfect,  that 
if  the  perfons  recovered,  they  were  by  the  Neocx'farean 
Coimcu,  rendered  ordinarily  incapable  of  being  admit- 
ted to  the  degree  of  prtfhylers  in  the  church. 

We  have  a  fair  fpecimen  of  this  in  the  inftance  of 
Novatus,  the  Greek  philofopher/f  According  to  Eu- 
fcbius,  "  he  fell  into  a  grievous  diftemper,  and  it  being 
fuppofed  that  he  would  die  immediately,  he  received 
baptifm  (being  befprinkled  with  water)  on  the  bed  where- 

•  Robinfon'i  hiftory,  p.  449 

f  Primitive  Cliriftianity,  I'art  I.  c.  10.  p  196. 

\  Sometimes  called  is'ovitiauus 


96 


Tbf  Mode  ofMaptiJm. 


oxi  he  lay  :  ( if  that  (an.be  called  baptifm.*' )*  Thus  it  ajv 
pears,  that  this  ancient  father  will  hardly  allow  fprink- 
lingXoht  .called  baptifm.  This  took  place  near  the 
middle  of  the  third  century,  and  ferves  to  fhow  in  what» 
light  Jprinklitig,  even  in  cafes  of  tHceJftiyy  was  viewed  ia 
that  day. 

It  may  afford  us  further  light  in  our  prefent  inquiries, 
to  confider  the  cafe  of  Conftantine.  He  has  generally 
been  honoured  as  the  firft  Chriftian  Emperor.  But  if 
according  to  your  argument,  a  man  is  not  to  be  confid- 
ered  as  a  Chriftian  without  baptifm,  then  he  muft  be 
looked  upon  as  a  heathen,  long  after  he  fought  under 
the  banner  of  the  erofs  ;  and  confequently,  muft  be  con- 
fidered  as  a  Chriftian  but  a  few  hours  before  his  death. 
But,  to  fuppofe  this,  13  to  fuppofe,  that  baptizing  a  man 
makes  him  a  Chriftian,  which  is  too  abfurd  to  be  admit- 
ted in  this  enlightened  period.  We  may  as  well  argue 
that  the  epehtte  worn  by  an  officer,  is  what  makes  him 
an  officer  ;  as,  that  baptifm  makes  the  perfon  baptized 
a  Chriftian.  Whereas  a  perfon  muft  be  an  officer  be- 
fore he  can  have  any  right  to  wear  the  badge  fo  a  per- 
fon ought  to  be  a  Chriftian,  before  he  takes  upon  him 
the  facred  badge  of  that  profeflion. 

It  appears  that  Conftnntine  was  brought  to  believe 
the  Chriftian  dodrine  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign, 
which  continued  upwards  of  thirty  years  ;  but  he  was 
not  baptized  until  a  little  before  his  death.*  Being  at 
this  time  in  an  ill  ftute  of  health,  he  repaired  to  the 
warm  b^ths  at  Conftantinople  ;  but  his  complaints  in- 
crcafing,  be  went  from  thence  to  Helenppolis,  and  from 
thence  to  the  fuburbs  of  Nicomedia  ;  where  he  called 
the  Bilhops  together,  and  fpake  to  them  in  the  follow- 
ing manner  :  "  This  wr»s  the  time  long  fmce  hoped  for 
by  me,  when  I  thirfted  and  prayed,  that  I  might  obtain 
falvation  in  God.  This  is  the  hour,  wherein  even  we 
may  alfo  enjoy  that  feal  which  confers  immortality.  I 
had  heretofore  taken  a  refolution  of  doing  this  in  the 
ftream  of  the  river  Jordan,  where  our  Saviour  himfelf. 


*  Eccl.  Hift.  lib.  vL  c.        p.  113. 
f  He  was  proUainjied  Emperor  ui  tke  ilk  year  of  the  371  Olymplai 
or  A.  D.  ios.  * 


Ike  Mcde  of  Baptifm. 


57 


in  likencfs  to  us,  is  recorded  to  have  partaken  of  the 
laver."*  After  this  we  are  told,  that  they  performed 
the  rites,  and  completed  the  divine  ceremonies-  It  is 
A  given  point  that  he  was  baptized  by  immerdon  ^  bvitj 

it  had  then  been  confidered  as  a  matter  of  fuch  indif- 
ferency,  as  is  plead  for  in  the  prefent  day,  he  would  un- 
dotibtedly  have  excufed  himfelf  from  going  into  the 
water,  in  his  ill  ftate  of  health. 

This  inftance  miift  carry  a  degree  of  evidence  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  in  favour  of  immerfion  :  for 
in  this  we  have  the  opinion  of  this  great  man,  in  what 
tn}de  the  Saviour  was  baptized  ;  and  of  his  determina- 
tion to  imitate  him  in  it,  both  as  to  the  manner  and 
place  f 

j  Perhaps  fome  into  whofe  hands  thefe  fiieets  may  fall, 
j  may  willi  to  be  informed,  how  immerfion  came  to  be 
j  laid  afide,  and  another  rite  fo  entirely  dilFerent,  gener- 

'  •  Eufel).  Life  of  Conftantine,  lib.  iv.  chap.  Ixii. 

f  It  is  abundantly  evident,  that  many  pcifons  who  were  born  of 
C-lriftian  parcr,l!i,  and  educated  in  the  Chriftian  faith,  were  not  baptized 
uniilthey  came  to  aJult  years,  and  made  a  perl'onal  profcffiou 

Helena,  the  mother  of  Conftantinc,  w.is  a  very  devout  and  zealous 
Chrikian,  yet  he  Wits  not  baptized  upon  htr  faith.  Nor  did  he  dedicate 
M-o,vij  children  to  God  in  baptifm  by  virtue  of  his  faith:  for  we  arc 
inf'jrir.eiby  t'ocrates,  that  hisfon  Conllantius,  who  fuceecdtd  his  father 
in  the  empire,  was  ijaptized  by  Euzoius  when  he  was  preparing  for  hia 
(Tptditioa  againft  Julianus,  and  iniined'iatcly  after  ended  his  life  at 
r.iopfucrenia,  twenty-five  years  after  tlie  death  of  his  father.  Eccl. 
1  iii^ory,  lib.  ii.  chap,  xlvii. 

15  Uil,  the  fon  of  Bad,  bifliop  of  Nicene,  was  baptized  in  Jordan  whcu 
i.ivanced  in  years. 

.  'Kory  the  grcac,  the  fon  of  Gregory,  bifUop  of  Naziaiizen,  was  born 
his  fatiicr  was  bilhop,  and  yet  not  baptized  until  he  was  twenty, 
r.iy  thirty  years  old.    See  Ofiander's  Book,  Cent.  iv.  1.  3,  and 
p.fon's  Hiftory,  p.  250. 
> .  uriuj  fays,  that  Chryfoftom  was  born  of  believing  parents,  and  wa.i 
I  lacatcd  by  Mclitius,  a  bifhoo,  yet  not  baptized  till  the  age  of  twcnty- 

Erafmiis  tcftiiiei,  that  Jcrom  was  born  in  the  city  of  Shydon,  of  Chrif- 
tiin  p;irciit«,  wa»  brought  up  in  the  Chriilan  religion,  aud  wai  baptized 
iu  the  thirtieth  year  of  his  age. 

Vofliu'  affinns,  that  NciSariui  was  chofen  bi.Tiop  of  Conilantinople 
before  i.e  was  baptized. 

Theodolius,  the  emperor,  was  born  in  Spain  ;  his  parents  were  both 
C'niilians,  and  from  his  childhood  had  been  tr.  jned  up  in  the  Nicene 
'  h  ;  was  baptized  at  {'hciTalouica,  by  Athalio,  when  he  was  upwards 
lircy  years  old.    Vide  Junius,  junior,  p.  68.  Rob.  p.  jjo. 


58 


The  Mode  of  Baptifm. 


ally  praclifed  in  its  room  ?  In  anfwer  to  this,  the  reader 
is  defired  to  call  to  mind  what  has  already  been  faid, 
that  fprinkling  firft  made  its  appearance  in  Africa,  in 
the  third  century,  in  favour  of  Clinicks  or  bed-ridden 
people.  But  even  African  Catholics  derided  it,  and  re- 
puted it  no  baptifm,  or  at  lead:  a  very  imperfect  one  * 
They  confidered  it  only  as  a  fubflitute  in  cafes  of  im- 
minent danger,  where  baptifm  in  the  inftituted  way 
could  not  with  fafety  be  adniiniflered.  Sprinkling  in 
thefe  cafes,  appears  to  have  been  in  ufe  feveral  centuries 
before  pouring  was  ever  praftifed  for  baptifm. 

The  lirft  appearance  of  baptizing  by  pouring  (which 
has  occurred  in  my  reading)  was  in  the  eighth  century  ; 
when  Pope  Stephen  III.  allowed  the  vahdity  of  fuch  a 
baptifm  of  infants  in  danger  of  death. 

The  queftion  propofed  to  him  was.  Whether  in  cafe 
of  tiecejfity  occafioned  by  illnefs  of  an  infr.nt,  it  were  law- 
ful to  baptize  by  p:un?ig  water  out  of  the  hand,  or  a 
cup,  on  the  head  of  the  infant  ?  Stephen  anfwered,  if 
fuch  a  baptifm  were  performed,  in  fuch  a  cafe  of  ne- 
ceffity,  in  the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity,  it  fliould  be 
held  valid. 

The  levadd  Bafnage  makes  feveral  remarks  on  the 
canon  of'^te^hei|,  referred  to  above.-  "  Although 
(faith  he)  it  is  accounted  the  firft  law  for  fprinkling,  yet 
it  doth  not  forbid  dipping  :  that  it  allows  fprinkling 
only  in  cales  of  imminent  dangpr  :  that  the  authentici- 
ty of  it  is  denied  by  fome  Catholics  :  that  many  laws 
were  made  after  this  time  in  Germany,  France,  antl 
England,  to  compel  dipping,  and  without  any  provifion 
for  cafes  of  necefHty  :  therefore,  tliat  this  law  did  not 
alter  the  vtode  of  dipping  in  public  baptiinis.  And  that 
it  was  not  until  five  hundred  and  fifty-feven  years  after, 
that  the  legiflature,  in  a  council  at  Ravena,  in  the  year 
thirteen  hundred  and  eleven,  declared  dipping,  ox  fpririk- 

There  was  indeed  in  fome  parts  of  the  Chnftian 
church,  long  bel\jre  this,  fuch.  a  ceremony  as  pouring 

«  Jr.  Ani-cK  Bcfii  de  diriicis  sxercit.  Hift.  Jcnce. 
I  JacoV.i  Barnii;li,  Mi^nument.  Vul  I.  Vrjiiit..  c'.p.  v.  5  4.  De  caM|)« 
^itfphini  Hi.  Pap«-  in  Robinfou.  • 


The  Mode  of  Faptlfm. 


99 


vk-atci-  upon  the  head,  but  was  cliftinifc  from  baptifm, 
and  like  exorcifm  conikiered  only  as  a  prep;iration. 
This  pouring  v/<i3  called  capit-alivium^  or  waihing  of  the 
head  ;  and  was  ufually  performed  on  Palm  Sunday  upon 
the  competents,  as  a  preparatory  to  baptilm. 

If  hiftory  can  eftablilh  any  fact,  it  undoubtedly  does 
this,  that  baptifm  was  univcrlally  adminiftered  by  irr, 
nu-rfton  in  the  whole  Chriftian  Church  (except  in  cal 
of  neceflity  as  above)  for  thirteen  hundred  years  togeti: 
er  ;  and  continued  fo  in  the  Engiiih  nation  until  about 
the  middle  of  the  fixteenth  centcry.    And  how  the 
change  was  made  in  the  Engli-.h  church,  we  are  faili- 
cientiy  informed  by  Dr.  Wall.     •«  Ci-lvin  (laith  he) 
was,  I  think,  the  tirit  in  tl>.e  world,  that  drew  up  u 
form  of  liturgy,  that  prefcribed /w/.-vw^r  ^^'^^y£'r  on  the  in- 
fant, abfolutely  without  faying  any  thine,  of  <//<>/>w^  (thi; 
was  done  in  the  year  1556.)    It  was  his  admirers  -  ! 
England,  who  in  queen  Elizabeth's  time,  brought  pour- 
ing into  ordinary  ufe,  which  before  was  ufed  only  to 
weak  children.    Bat  the  fucceeding  Preftyterians  in 
Eneland,  about  the  year  1(564>5  (when  their  reign  began) 
r  farther  yet  from- the  ancient  way  ;  and  inflead  of 
•:g,  brought  into  ufe  in  many  places  fprinkimg.  De- 
g  at  the  fame  time  againrt  all  uie  of  fonts,  bap- 
/.es,  &:c."* 

.  v.  i/h  to  add  one  remark  more  from  Dr.  Wall  un- 
der this  head.  There  has  (f.iith  he)  no  novelty  or 
alteration,  that  I  know  of,  in  point!  of  baptifm,  been 
brought  into  our  church,  but  in  the  nccy  or  nutmier  of 
adminillering  it.  The  way  that  is  now  ordinarily  ufed, 
we  cannot  deny  to  have  been  a  novelty,  brought  into 
this  church  by  thofe  that  learned  it  in  Germany,  or  at 
Geneva.  And  they  were  not  content  to  follow  tlie  ex- 
ample of  pouring  a  quantity  of  water,  (which  had  there 
been  introduced  infiead  of  immerfion)  but  improwd  it 
(if  I  may  fo  abufe  that  word)  from  pouring  to  fprink- 
Hng  ;  that  it  might  have  as  little  refemblance  of  the 
ancient  way  of  baptizing  as  polFible."f 

»  Defence  of  the  Hlflor)-  of  Infant  Baptifm,  p.  146. 
t  Ibid.  p.  403,  .104. 


100  The  Mode  of  Baptijm. 

This  indefatigable  hiftorian  has  afligned  two  reafons 
for  this  alteration,  which  are  as  follow  ;  "  I  muft  ow 
in  the  firft  place,  that  many  of  the  clergy  feem  to  b 
of  the  opinion  of  the  late  bifl  op  of  Salifbury,  that  the 
coldnefs  of  our  climate  is  a  good  reafon  to  change  dip- 
ping into  pouriug."  Upon  which  he  obferves,  ««  That 
our  climate  is  no  colder  than  it  was  for  thofe  thirteen 
cr  fourteen  hundred  years  from  the  beginning  of  Chrif- 
tiAuity  here,  to  queen  Elizabeth's  time,  ar.d  not  near  fo 
cold  as  rVadcovy,  and  feme  other  countries,  where  they 
do  ftill  dip  their  children  in  baptifm,  and  find  no  incon- 
venience in  it."*  Although  this,  with  many,  might  be 
accounted  a  luflicient  reafon  for  the  alteration,  the  Doc- 
tor fuppofes  the  following  had  more  influence.  That 
«'  It  was  not  the  coldnefs  of  the  climate,  but  the  imita- 
tion of  Calvin  and  the  church  at  Geneva,  and  fome 
others  tliereabouts." 

Thus,  Sir,  from  the  obfervations  now  made,  we 
clearly  fee  what  was  the  praftice  of  the  ancient  Chrif- 
tians  ;  and  how  the  alteration  has  been  brought  about. 
If  the now  related  by  Dr.  Wall  are  true,  (and  he 
is  certainly  fupported  by  the  current  teftimony  of  hifto- 
ry)  I  hardly  think  you  will  again  afk,  By  luhat  authority 
nue  nuihe  immerjion  ejfehtial  to  boptijm. 

As  fprinkiing  is  acknowledged  to  be  a  tioveliy  by  thofe 
who  praftife  it,  and  that  it  was  brought  in,  in  «  imitation 
of  Calvin,"  and  not  in  "  imitation  of  the  baptilm  of  Je- 
fus  Chrift,"  we  do  not  fee  our  way  clear  to  acknowl- 
edge the  validity  of  it.  The  advice  given  to  Ifrael  of 
old  may  be  applied  in  the  prefent  cafe  j  Thus  faith  the 

*  It  is  probable  the  following  incident  had  net  taken  place  when  the 
Drjdor  wrote  his  defence,  or  he  would  hive  made  an  eiception. 

It  is  faid  by  an  Englifti  hiftorian,  that  at  I'cterfburg  they  fotnetiojes 
baptize  their  children  in  a  river  or  c.iniil,  by  cutting  b  h»le  through 
ihe  ice,  upon  which  he  obferves,  "  I  hane  heard  that  a  prieft,  in  lin* 
merCng  a  child,  (for  baptifm  is  perjornitd  by  the  imnierfion  of  the 
Y.hole  body)  let  it  flip,  through  iii;atention,  into  the  water.  The  child 
WES  drowned  ;  but  the  t-nly  man  fiiffcred  no  coi  ftcrnation.  "  CtDt 
n:t  anotbtr"  faid  he,  with  the  uimoft  compolure,  "/er  tbr  Lord  both 
taktn  that  to  binfelj  "  '1  he  Empreff,  howiver,  having  other  ufes  for 
her  fuhje(5ts,  and  not  deGring  thai  the  Lord  Ihould  have  any  ir.cre,  in 
th.-\t  way,  at  leail,  gave  orders  that  all  children  to  be  baptized  in  the 
hole  in  the  river  ihould  henceforth  be  let  dow^n  in  a  balket."  W.  Rich. 
arUfon'j  Anecdotes  cf  the  Rutfun  Etuplre,  p.  335..  in  Robinfon. 


Godly  Sincerity. 


101 


Lord,  Stand  ye  in  the  nvays  and  fee,  ajk  for  the  old  paths, 
•u  ht-re  is  the  good  tuay,  and  nvalk  therein  ;  and  ye  Jhalljind 
rejl  for  your  fouls* 


SECTION  VI. 

j  Godly  Sincerity,  as  conneclid  loith  externa!  Obedience,  con- 
i  fidered. 

In  my  other  Piece,  I  have  a  few  times  ufed  the 
i  term  ftncere,  and  its  fubftantive  ftncerity.    I  have  fai^., 
I  tiut  "  lincerity  is  not  the  term  of  communion,  but  be- 
I  ing  conformed  to  the  apoftles'  doctrine,  and  continuing 
fteadfaftly  therein."    I  have  alfo  fiid,  that  "  whatever 
we  pra£life  which  is  not  according  to  the  will  of  Chrifl:, 
I   is  contrary  thereto  ;  although  we  be  ever  fo  fincere  in 
doing  it."    To  this  you  reply,  '  If  I  rightly  conjecture, 
it  exhibits  a  fentiment  which  is  falfe  in  its  nature,  per- 
nicious in  its  confequences,  and  a  firft  principle  of  your 
iniuake  refpetfting  clofe  communion."     Sir,  if  your 
conjeElure  be  right,  we  are  now  in  a  fair  way  to  get  at 
'  the  root  of  the  difficulty.    You  however  acknowledge 
the  firfi:  part  of  the  fentence,  "  thart  whatever  we  prac- 
tife  which  is  not  according  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  is 
contrary  thereto      This,  you  fay;  '  is  very  plain  and 
good  doftrine  j'  but  when  I  added,  although  we  be 
I'ver  fo  fincere,  you  lay,  I  prefent  a  difRcuhy.  Really, 
Sir,  it  appears  to  me  as  you  ccnifrue  the  paifage,  it  pre- 
fents  a  much  greater  difficulty  :  for,  if  an  aft  were  really 
dilagreeable  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  and  cur  peiforniing 
it  in  fincerity  would  render  it  agreeable,  we  muft  fup- 
pofe  his  will  to  be  dependent  on  the  fincerity  of  his 
creatures  ',  if  fo,  his  will  cannot  be  a  rule  of  condudt 
for  us,  but  we  muft  be  governed  by  our  own  iincerity. 

That  we  may  not  dil'pute  about  words  rather  than 
fentiments,  it  may  be  proper  hero  to  fcuir  ibe  n  earing 


*  Jer.  vi.  i«. 

It '2 


0-2 


Godly  Sificeriiy. 


of  the  term  f^icet  e.  You  allow  that  <  the  word  is  am- 
biguous in  the  cuftomary  ufe  of  it  i'  but  conclude,  *  as 
it  is  ufed  inlcripture,  it  generally,  if  not  invariably,  Im- 
plies or  intends  pure  and  upright  afFeftions  of  heart/ 
That  it  is  ufeci  in  this  fenle  in  the  epiftle  to  the  Pliiiip- 
pians,  will  be  granted  ;  birt,  that  it  is  uied  in  fnme- 
what  -of  a  different  fenfe  by  the  apoflle  Peter,  muft  alfo 
be  acknowledged  :  For  he  fpeaks  of  the  fmcere  milk  of 
the  word,  which  being  of  the  neuter  gender,  does  uot 
includre  afFeiSHons  of  any  kind.  'I  hefe  two,  are  per- 
haps the  only  inftances  in  fcripture,  in  which  this  adjec-  • 
live  is  ufed,  except  in  the  marginal  reading. 

But  Ibould  it  even  be  granted  that  the  word  ,  w*lieii 
ufiad  in  Icripture,  is  conrtantly  ufed  in  the  fenfe  for 
which  you  plead  ;  will  you  hence  argue  that  I  am  ' 
obliged  to  ufe  it  in  this  fenfe  Have  1  not  a  right  to 
ufe  it  according  to  common  acceotation  ?  Surely  I 
have  not  mentioned  godly,  or  fcripture  fwcerky.  I  have 
indeed  annexed  the  adverb  ever,  to  fmcere  ;  which  you 
are  pleafed  to  fay,  <  extends  to  all  kinds  and  to  all  de- 
grees of  fiacerity."  But  have  you,  by  the  fair  rule* 
of  criticifm,  a  right  to  this  conclufion  ?  Moft  certainly 
you  have  not.  It  will  be  allowed,  that  the  term  ufed 
will  extend  to  the  higheft  degree  ;  but  by  no  means 
determines  the  kind  or  quality  of  fincerity. 

Should  you  agree  to  meet  a  friend  tomorrow  even- 
ing at  eight  o'clock,  and  Ihould  fay,  '  I  will  not  fail  of 
being  there  although  it  (hould  be  ever  i'o  dark' — It 
might  with  as  much  propriety  be  argued,  that  this  in- 
cluded all  kinds  of  darknds,  natural,  preternatural, 
moral,  and  fpiritual  ;  as,  that  ever  fo  fmcere  include* 
all  kinds  of  fmcerity. 

To  prevent  any  miftake  in  future,  I  am  wliUng  to  let 
you  know  how  I  underftand  the  word,  and  how  I  wifii 
to  be  under ftood  when  I  ufe  it.  The  plain,  natural 
ugnification  of  the  word  appears  to  be  this — The  hoveji 
perjuiijion  cf  ihe  mind,  according  io  the  degree  of  light  in  the 
iinderjiiiiidrng  ;  and  in  general  is  to  be  underftood  in 
diftiuftion  from  hypocrify  Thus,  a  man  may  be  a  fin- 
cere  friend  to  the  Federal  Conflitution,  He  may  be  a 
good  man  in  a  moral  fcnfc,  and  yet  his  fmcere  attach- 


Godly  Sinceriiy. 


103 


,   lo  the  laws  of  bis  country,  may  be  the  effeift  of 
,  jl'uical  fentiments,  rather  than  his  piety.  Another 
....  may  fincerely  believe  the  xxxix  articles  of  the 
i  Ciiurch  of  England,  and  as  fincerely  believe  that  all 
I  i:'e  dilli-iitcrs  are  wrong.    I  fluH  not  pretend  to  fay 
t  this  is  godly  fincerity,  or  that  it  is  not  j  but  I  will 
ure  to  fay  he  may  be  a  good  man,  and  this  may  be 
J      iDccre  opinion. 

In  fartlier  remarking  upon  this  part  of  the  fubjeft 
;  lay,  '  Your  words  imply,  that  a  perfon  may,  in  the 
cile  of  godly  fincerity,  act  contrary  to  the  will  of 
ift.*    In  order  to  make  a  fatisfaclory  reply  to  this, 
k1  be  proper  to  inquire  what  is  meant  by  the  will 
iirift.    When  I  ufe  the  term,  I  mean  his  will  re- 
i  in  his  "zuord :  For  I  know  nothing  of  his  will  far- 
than  lie  has  therein  made  it  known.    It  is  a  gen- 
maxim  with  Protel'tants,  that  the  word  of  God  is  a 
.  .1  fc(5t  rule  of  faith  and  practice.    Therefore,  to  talk  of 
things  as  being  agreeable  or  dilagreeable  to  the  will  of 
Chrift,  in  any  other  fenfe  than  as  they  are  approved  or 
difapproved  by  the  'word  of  God,  is  to  talk  merely  upon 
the  footing  of  conjecture.    Hence,  Sir,  ifyouunder- 
ftand  the  will  of  Chrift  in  this  fenfe,  I  freely  acknowl- 
edge it  to  be  my  opinion,  that  a  good  man  may  fincerely 
a£t  contrary  to  it.    You  may  call  this  g'dly  fmeerity^  or  . 
by  any  other  name  that  you  pleafe. 

If  good  men  cannot  be  fincerely  wrong,  or  in  other 
words,  fincerely  erroneous,  then  all  their  errors  and 
miftakes,  muft  be  confidered  as  agreeable  to  the  will  of 
Chrift  ;  or  otherwife,  as  a£ts  of  criminal  hypocrify  ! 
But  you  aik,  <  Is  not  godly  (incerity  the  y&xy  fcul  and' 
f'Jfeuce  of  conformity  to  Chrift  V  I  anfwcr,  it  is  impoiTible 
to  conform  to  the  luill'  of  Chrift  without  fincerity,  or 
uprightnels  of  heart  ;  but  mere  fincerity  is  by  no  means 
conformity  to  Chrift's  will,  with  refpeft  to  pofitive  infti- 
tutions.  It  can  only  be  confidered  as  a  necefi'ary  quah- 
fication  for  conformity.  Under  the  Mofaic  economy, 
a  lamb  for  facrifice  maft  be  without  blemilh  ;  but  the 
perfection  of  the  lamb  did  not  make  it  a  facrifice,  this 
only  rendered  it  fuitable  ;  but  it  was  its  being  adtually 
offered  up.    So  with  regard  to  our  obeying  any  pofitive 


lot 


Godly  Sincerity. 


precept,  fincenty  is  abfolutely  neceffary  to  acceptable 
obedience.  A  man  may  be  convinced  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  relieve  a  needy  brother  ;  and  alfo  fincerely  de- 
termine at  a  convenient  feafon  to  do  it  ;  yet  certain 
circumftances  may  take  place,  fo  as  finally  to  prevent 
its  being  accomplifhed.  That  God  may  approve  of  his 
fwcdve  intention^  will  not  be  difputed  ;  but  we  can  have 
fellovvfliip  in  his  charity  no  farther  than  we  hnoiu  it» 
which  is  only  by  his  ading  it  out.  It  will  be  granted 
that  Chrift  judges  the  moral  qualities  of  our  aftions  by 
the  intentions  of  the  heart  ;  but  he  has  not  given  this 
as  a  rule  to  us,  any  farther  than  it  difcovers  itfelf  in  the 
r.ftion.  Chrift  pronounces  the  man  guilty  of  adultery, 
who  looks  on  a  woman  criminally  to  luft  after  her  ;  but 
we  have  no  right,  either  by  the  laws  of  God  or  man,  to 
charge  any  perfon  with  that  crime,  without  the  actual 
commiflion  of  it. 

I  conclude,  that  a  good  man  may,  in  one  period  of 
)'dG,Jiiicere!y  believe  that  he  is  afting  according  to  the 
will  of  Chrift,  and  at  another,  as  ftnccrely  believe  that 
what  he  then  did,  was  never  commanded,  or  enjoined 
by  Chrift  ;  but  was  the  mere  effeft  of  education  or  tra- 
dition. 

Nothing  can  bring  the  matter  more  familiarly  into 
view,  than  the  fubjedt  now  in  difpute.  We  will  fup- 
pofe,  that  in  the  fincerity  of  your  heart,  you  have  de- 
fired  to  open  a  door  for  free  communion  with  forae  of 
the  Baptifts  and  as  *  Jincerity  is  the  very  elTence  cf  con- 
formity to  Chrift,'  wo  muft  conclude,  in  this  particular 
yon  aft  agreeably  to  his  will.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Baptifts  to  whom  you  make  the  friendly  propofal,  as 
Jincerely  believe,  that  it  is  not  according  to  the  v/ill  of 
Chrift,  that  they  (hould  communiicate  with  you  in  your 
prefent  fituation.  This  alfo  contains  the  elTence  of  con- 
formity to  Chrift. 

Thus,  Sir,  if  I  underftand  your  argument,  this  muft 
be  the  conclufion  ;  that  it  is  the  will  of  Chrift,  that  the 
Psedobaptifts  ftiould  communicate  with  the  Baptifts  ; 
aad  at  the  fame  time,  it  is  his  •will,  that  the  Baptifts 
fhould  not  communicate  with  them  !  I  ftiall  take  it  for 
granted,  that  the  Baptifts  do  in  the  Jmcerity  of  their 


Godly  Swcer'ii\ 


105 


I  ts,  refufe  to  communicate  with  thofe  whom  they 
K  ok  upon  as  not  baptized  according  to  Chrift's  inftitu- 
tion.    If  this  rcfufal  be  made  godly  fiiiccy'tty,  {2X\6. 

who  will  dare  to  fliy  it  is  not  ?)  then  according  to  your 
argument,  it  mufl:  be  '  above  every  thing  elfe  pleafing 
to  Chrift  equally  fo,  as  communicating  with  other 
denominations  at  the  table. 

To  ilhiftrate  your  doctrine  of f.ncerity  you  afk,  <  Would 
it  be  according  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  for  a  perfon  to 
conform  to  ycur  mode  of  baptifm,  while  he  really 
thinks  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  will  ofChrifl  for  him 
fo  to  do  ?'  To  aufvver  this,  it  will  be  necefiary  firft  to 
inquire,  whether  the  node  of  baptifm  prafHfed  by  us, 
is  according  to  Chrift's  revealed  will  ?  If  not,  neither 
our  thinking,  or  not  thinking,  can  poflibly  make  it  fo. 
If  it  be  acccording  to  his  will,  our  thinking  otherwife 
cannot  alter  if,  unlefs  his  will  is  entirely  dependent  on 
the  opinion  of  his  creatures. 

Again,  you  alk,  •  Would  it  be  according  to  the  will 
of  Chrift,  for  a  perfon  to  negkEl  to  have  his  children 
baptized  in  ottr  mode,  while  he  really  thinks  it  is  the 
will  of  Chrift  for  him  thus  to  bring  them  to  the  ordi- 
nance ?'  Aiif'wer.  If  Chrift  has  any  where  declared  it 
to  be  his  will,  that  new-born  infants  fliould  be  dedica- 
ted to  him,  by  fpr'nikitng  water  upon  them  in  the  name 
of  the  facred  Trinity,  it  can  by  no  means  be  duty  to 
ntgleli  it.  If  not,  it  may  whh  propriety  be  afked,  Who 
hath  required  this  fervice  at  your  hatidj  ? 

But  may  we  not  farther  inquire,  Would  it  be  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  Chrift,  for  a  perfon  to  neglefl  to 
have  his  male  chilttren  circumciftdy  while  he  really 
thinks  that  it  is  the  will  of  Chrift  that  they  Ihould  be  ? 

Again,  Would  it  be  according  to  the  will  of  Chrift, 
for  a  perfon  to  negkEi  to  bring  his  baptized  infants  to 
the  communion,  while  he  really  thinks  that  it  is  his 
will  that  they  Ihould  be  brought  .•**  In  ftiort,  to  grant 
your  argument,  will  not  this  be  the  confequence,  that 
every  thing  which  a  pious  perfon  ftticerely  believes  to  be 
according  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  is  according  to  it,  how- 
ever abfurd  or  inconfiftent  it  may  be  ? 


♦  Vide  I'icrcc's  EfTiy  on  giving  the  Eucharift  to  Children. 


Godly  Slnceffty. 


You  have  attempted  to  extricate  youiTelf  from  thig 
confequence,  in  your  marginal  note,  (p.  24-)  whierein 
}  ou  fay  ;  '  -What  has  been  fuid  does  not  Imply,  that  a 
man  always  does  right  when  he  thinks  he  does  right  j 
nor  that  a  man's  conduct  is  always  acceptable  to 
God,  when  he  acts  agreeably  to  his  own  fentiments.'- 
'  A  man  may  zct  according  to  his  own  ientiments  from 
felfiflj  defires,-7ii,  well  as  from  l.cl^  difirs*  True,  Sir  j 
and  how  are  we  to  know  wJiich  of  thefc  gOTern  his  coii- 
duft  ?  You  have  now  fuggefted  the  difficulty  ;  but  have 
not  propofed  a  remedy.  If  men's  actions  did  always 
reprefent  the  fentiments  of  their  hearts,  we  fliould  not 
be  expofed  to  the  liability  of  a  miftake  ;  but  as  ihey 
do  not,  we  may  fuppc^fe  that  ihey  mEy  deceive  them- 
felves,  and  others,  with  refpect  fo  their  motives  of fin- 
cerityi  as  well  as  any  thing  elfe. 

As  you  have  put  your  ihsofy  of fincerity  upon  trial,  in 
feme  of  the  foregoing  iultai:ces,  we  are  willing  to  com- 
pare the  matter  a  little  farther.  We  will  grant,  that 
the  Pscdobaptifts,  in  the ftfuerity  of  their  liearts,  believe 
I':  to  be  the  will  of  Chrid,  that  they  fhoukl  give  up  their 
cliiUren  to  him  in  baptifm  j  and  that  fprinkling  fulE- 
ciently  anfwers  the  mode.  On  the  other  hand  we'  will 
allow,  that  the  Baptifts,  influenced  by  the  f.me  kind  of 
fmcerity,  really  believe  that  it  is  the  will  of  Chrift,  that 
they  fliould  be  immerfed  upon  a  profefiion  of  faiih 
(»-hether  they  have  been  fj^rinkied  in  infancy  or  not) 
and  that  there  is  no  command  to  baptize  their  children  j 
bat  to  bring  them  up  iti  the  nurttire  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord.  Now,  fincerity  being  the  very  «  eifence  of  con- 
formity to  Chrift,  and  under  the  cxercife  of  godly  fin- 
cerity they  cannot  aft  contrary  to  his  will,'  they  are 
both  in  complete  conform.ity  to  it  ;  unlefs  you  Avill  un- 
dertake to  prove  one  of  them  iniincere.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows, that  it  is  the  will  of  Chrift,  that  one  part  of  his 
church  (hould  imitate  His  baptifm  in  Jordan,  by  being 
immerfed  ;  and  that  another  part  fliould  believe,  that 
the  baptifm  of  Jfas  Chrif}  ir  not  to  he  imitated  by  Ckrf- 
tiniis.  Tliat  one  branch  of  his  church  (hould  give  up 
their  children  to  him  in  baptifm,  and  thereby  initiate  - 
them  into  the  fchool  of  the  lacred  myftcrles,  without 


Goiily  Sincerity, 


107 


.  knowledge  or  confent,  at  a  pcriotl  of  life  when 
4  y  are  incapable  of  acting  for  themfelves  ;  and  that 
another  part  of  his  church  Ihould,  from  pritictple,  ne- 
gledt  the  baptifm  of  their  infants  ;  whililthey  coniider 
Clirifiianity  as  addreffing  itielf  to  the  confciences  of  all  ; 
and  that  none  can  become  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  with- 
out tkeir  perfonal  confent.  How  complex  !  how  variable, 
does  this  do(5trine  reprefent  the  will  of  Chrift  ! 

But  you  inform  us  that  you  have  '  one  more  ferious 
^ueftion  to  aflc  (it  fiiall  now  be  attended  to.)  '  Is 
the  will  of  Chrift  fuch,  that,  while  a  perfon  is  a  Piedo- 
baptift  in  fentiment,  ho  muft  be  under  a  natural  and 
unavjidclle  neccfllty  of  difobedience  V  This  queftion 
appears  to  me,  ratlier  more  curious  than  ferious.  To 
fuppofe  a  perfon  to  be  under  a  natural  and  uriavoidablt; 
necefiity  of  difobedience,  is  to  fuppofe  he  adts  without 
choice,  or  that  he  has  not  natural  ability  to  do  other- 
wife.  I  confefs  I  cannot  fee  any  natural  neceffity, 
which  compels  one  peribn  to  be  a  P^edobaptift,  rather 
than  another  ;  or  of  contiiniing  in  thofe  fentimtnts, 
rather  than  to  embrace  others.  Our  fentiments  ever 
are,  and  ever  ought  to  be,  the  zftcCt  of  choice  ;  and  not 
of  uettural  lu'cffifj.  If  we  choofo  fentiments  contrary 
to  the  will  of  Chrift,  fo  long  as  we  retain  them,  we 
ncceffurily  difoboy  him  ;  but  this  is  by  no  means  *  natural 
and  unavoidable  neceflit/,'  but  entirely  of  a  different 
kind.  I  humbly  conceive,  there  can  be  no  natural  ne- 
cefiity, of  either  faints  or  jinners  difobeying  Chrift: 
for  there  is  a  degree  of  criminality  in  difobedience, 
which  is  not  to  be  found  in  '  nc,L:iral  unavoidable  necef- 
fit.. 

To  illuftrate  the  doflrino  of  fuceritf  r.o-u  under  con- 
fidi-MMtion,  you  introduce  the  following  fimile.  *  A 
phyfician  may,  in  certain  circumftnnces,  with  benevo- 
lent intention,  through  miftake,  adminifter  a  potion  to 
his  pa';i'int,  which  may  be-produdive  of  immediate 
death.  In  this  cafe  he  is  not  criminal.  Here  is  no 
evilj  but  «  natural  evil,  to  be  imputed  to  his  conducft.' 
Sir,  I  have  no  deftre  to  run  the  mdiiElment  any  higher 
than  you  do.  But,  (hould  the  patient  be  fo  happy  as 
tJ  difcover  li.e  pl.yi'clan's  miftdce,  v/ould  he  be  under 


lOS 


Godl>f  Sincerity. 


any  obligation  to  take  the  deadly  potion,  bccaufe  It  was 
not  delivered  with  criminal  intention  ?  Yea,  would  he 
not  be  in  the  higheft  fenfe  criminal  to  do  it  ?  To  apply 
this  figure.  Admitting,  that  with  benevolent  intention, 
you  have  propofed  free  communion  with  us,  yet  if  we 
really  believe  it  to  be  inconfiftent  with  fome  part  of 
ChrilFs  revealed  will,  we  cannot  with  the  fame  purity  of 
intention  comply. 

But  it  is  time  to  attend  to  the  application  you  make 
from  the  above  obfervations.  You  fay,  '  Granting  that 
immerfion  be  the  appointed  mode  of  baptifm,  and  be- 
lievers the  o?dy  proper  fubje^ts,  yet  if  a  Pa:dobaptift  re- 
ally think  otherwil'e,  and  with  an  obedient  heart  offer  up 
his  children  in  our  mode,  the  perfon  in  fo  doing,  is  as 
well  accepted  in  the  fight  of  God,  as  though  his  out- 
ward condudl  had  been  according  to  the  appoi/iied  mode 
of  baptifm.'  Granting  this,  and  I  beg  to  know  what 
foundation  Psedobaptifm  ftands  upon  !  If  it  be  not  fup- 
ported  by  divine  appointment.,  it  can  have  no  other  origin 
than  human  tradition  j  and  coniequently  mull;  fall  to 
the  ground  ;  unlefs  you  can  make  it  appear,  that  your 
Jmccre  opinion  is  of  equal  authority  with  divine  appoint- 
ijients.  '  If  a  Padobaptifl  really  think  otherv)ife  What 
then  ?  Why  this  fuperfedes  the  whole  force  of  the  di- 
vine comm  uKl,  and  authorizes  his  own  opinion  as  the 
rule  of  his  conduft  !  And  left  he  fhould  fcruple  the 
validity  of  it,  he  is  alTured,  that  in  <  lb  doing  he  is  as 
well  accepted  in  the  fight  of  God,  as  though  his  out- 
ward conduit  had  been  according  to  the  appointed 
mode.'  According  to  this  argument,  divine  appoint- 
ments are  of  little  confequence  to  Pa;dobaptills,  if  they 
have  a  riglit  whenever  they  think  proper  to  fet  them 
alide,  and  fubftitutc  others  in  their  room.  Per- 
haps the  following  words  of  our  Saviour  may  not  be 
thought  wnolly  nr.ipplicable  to  this  fentiment.  Full 
iveil  ye  rejeH  the  ojir.inandnient  of  God,  that  yt  may  keep  your 
own  tniiiitiins* 

Is  it  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  God  would  make 
appointments  for  his  people  v/hich  he  did  not  think 
proper  for  them  to  oblerve  ?  Or  lias  he  left  difcretion- 


•  A'ark  vii.  9, 


Godly  Siticerity* 


109 


ary  orders  with  any  man,  or  any  body  of  men,  to  fet 
afide,  alter,  or  amend  any  of  his  pofitive  inftitutions  ? 
But  I  recolledl:  you  have  faid,  (p.  6.)  that  *  it  is  not 
necelTary  that  men  fliould  think  in  all  refpetSts  as  God 
thinks  and  perhaps  this  is  one  inftance  where  you 
would  apply  it.  For,  if  God  has  thought  fit  to  appoint 
the  mode,  and  defcribe  the  fubjedts  of  baptifm  ;  and  a 
Paedobaptift  may  ofFer  JuhjeEis  elTentially  different  from 
thofe  defcribed  in  the  inftitution,  and  that  in  a  mode 
quite  unlike  the  divine  appointment,  and  yet  be  '  as 
ivell  accepted^  as  though  he  had  obferved  the  mod:  exacH: 
conformity  to  God's  law  \  furely  then,  we  may  very  fm- 
cerely  make  void  tlie  commandments  of  God,  and  eftab- 
lifli  our  oivn  pious  traditions  ! 

To  fanftion  the  foregoing  argument  you  fay,  *  This  is 
agreeable  to  common  fenfe  and  revelation.' 

How  far  common  fenfe  may  be  in  favour  of  your  ar- 
gument I  fliall  not  here  pretend  to  fay  ;  but  if  divine 
revelation  fairly  eftablifli  it,  it  muft  be  conceded  to. 
But  before  we  decide  upon  this  point  it  may  be  proper 
to  hear  revelation  fpeak  for  itfelf.  Decked,  with  fove- 
reign  majefty  it  thus  addrelTes  us  j  "  What  thing  foever 
I  command  yoity  obferve  to  do  it  :  thou  Jlialt  not  ADD  thereto^ 
nor  DIMINISH  from  it."*  What,  not  if  we  '  really  think 
ether-wife  ?*  By  no  means.  But  conflantly  "  Teaching 
them  to  OBSERVE  all  thi«<;s  whatsoever  I  HAVE 
COMMANDED  Y0U."f  Granting  this  ;  but,  if  we  fm- 
cerely  think,  and  a£t  otherwife,  fliall  we  not  be  '  as  well 
accepted  ?'  "  To  obey  is  better  than  facrifice.,  and  to  hearken 
than  the  fat  of  rams"X  "  If  ye  love  keep  my  command- 
ments"^ For  "  /;/  vain  do  ye  ivorfhip  me,  teaching  for 
diclrines  the  commandments  of  men"\\ 

This  is  the  voice  of  revelation  with  refpcifl:  to  pofi- 
tive inftitutions  ;  and  notwithftanding  you  have  chal- 
lenged the  judgment  of  common  fenfe  in  favour  of  your 
fentiments,  we  are  willing  to  recommit  the  matter,  and 
abide  the  impartial  decilion.  If  it  be  not  a  dictate  of 
common  fenfe,  that  God's  commands  fliould  be  implic- 
itly obeyed,  and  his  pofitive  inftitutions  ftrictly  obferr- 


•  DcHt.  xii.  31,       t  Matr.  xxvi!'.  ao.       |  i  Sam.  xv.  aj. 
§  John  xIt.  15.  g  Matt.  ev.  9. 


110 


Godly  Sincerity. 


ed,  without  the  leaft  known  deviation  ;  and  that  the 
Jtncere  ohfervaiice  of  his  appointments  Ihould  be  more  ac- 
ceptable to  him  than  the  fincere  neg'ecl  of  them  ;  then, 
of  courfe  your  argument  will  be  eftablilhed,  and  w'e 
muft  conclude,  that  like  the  Athenians,  in  thefi  things  we 
have  been  too  fupcijUtioiis. 

You  acknowledge,  (p.  27)  that  *  integrity  of  heart 
does  not  render  the  judgment  infallible,  with  refpecl  to 
afcertaining  the  will  of  God.'  This  indeed  appears  to 
me  to  be  true  ;  but  why  then  do  you  blame  me  for 
fuppofing  a  perfon  with  godly  nncerlty  may  act  contra- 
ry to  the  will  of  ChriftV  I  thiiik  it  undeniably  fol- 
lows, that  if  he  may  with  integrity  of  heart  riii/lake  his 
will,  or  not  njcertain  it,  then  he  may  with  the  fame  i^p- 
rightnefs  acH:  contrary  to  it.  But  did  you  not  tell  us 
above,  that  <  fincerity  is  the  v-ery  foul  and  ejfcnce  of  con- 
formity to  Chrift  ?'  What,  in  the  height  of  conformi- 
ty to  the  ivill  of  Chrift  !  and  yet  not  able  to  afcertain 
what  it  is  ?    This,  at  bef},  13  but  accidental  conformity  ! 

The  fcntiment  exprefled  in  my  other  Piece,  of  ailing 
contrary  to  the  will  of  ChriH:,  "  although  we  be  ever  lo 
fuicerc"  you  '  conjefliire  to  be  faife  in  its  nature,  and 
pernicious  in  its  confequences.'  It  is  true,  conjecture 
is  not  the  mofi:  forcible  argument  ;  but  yet  it  may  be 
right.  I  am  not  fatisfied,  however,  that  you  have 
proved  the  fentiment  to  be  fife  or  that  it  is  in  your 
power  to  do  it,  after  granting  the  lirft  part  of  it.  As 
to  the  pernicious  confequences  which  you  have  difcov- 
ered  in  it,  I  may  have  overlooked  them  -,  probably,  be- 
caufe  they  are  rot  fo  high  coloured  as  the  charge.  But 
what  pernicious  confequences  can  we  imagine  from  our 
conformity  to  the  apoll;les'  doctrine,  and  fledfafl:  con- 
tinuance in  it  Or  from  following  the  plain  dire£tion» 
in  God's  v\-ord,  rather  than  our  own  fancied  notion  bf 
fincere  oled:ct:ce,  without  external  conformity  ?  I  think 
you  will  not  pretend  to  fty,  that  1  have  inllfted  upon  a 
confoi-mity  to  the  apoftics'  dot^trine,  which  did  not  in- 
clude fmccrity.  You  cmaot  fay  it  without  injuring  me, 
and  contradicting  yourieif.*  • 

*i  If.aeyoufayi  (p.  ia)  Iinfift  upon  a  perfon's  being  a  real  believer  in 

/\rr1<T  tn       Vipinor  a  nronrr  fiihir  i'l  nf  haiitifm.  then  lie  muft  certaillir 


G:dly  Sincerity. 


'ppears  to  me,  that  the  particular  fentiment  now 
.../  ■.nite  will  come  to  this  point.    I  am  contending  for 
I  fincere  ccnforniity  tb  the  podtive  inftitutions  of  Chrirt,  in 
the  e:<a£l  order  in  which  he  hp.s  placed  them.    You  are 
pleading  for  the  acceptablenels  of fmcerc  dcviaticiu  from 
I  ChriiVs  appointments. 

To  proceed — You  obferve,  that  <  it  is  not  the  cx!tr~ 
.•tducl  which  is  pleafing  or  difploaling  to  Ciirift  ; 
X  hjtnceri.'y  cr  inftnceriiy.'    I  am  far  from  thinking 
:  the  ftriftert  externa!  confoniiity  vithout  llncerity 
V.  c-;d  be  pleaflng  to  him.    Yet,  I  thirk  it  reafonaWe 
lippofe,  that  tifiKcere  extcnu:!  obedience  to  the  poil- 
commands  of  Chrill,  nmft  be  more  pleanng  to  him 
Tifiucere  cmiiuon  of  them.    For,  faith  he,  IVhcj'j- 
thref^re J1:jU  break  one  of  thefc  Icnft  commandmenis, 
.  :ach  men  fc^  he  Jball  be  called  the  le  ^jJ  in  the  kingdom 
.:i-en  :  but  vjhofoever  Jhall  DO  and  TEACH  them,  ti  e 
ihal!  be  called  great  in.  the  kingdom  of  heaven*  Should 
lay  this  has  fpecial  reference  to  the  7noral  law,  it 
be  granted  ;  but  it  may  not  be  wholly  inapplicable 
.2  cafe  before  us.    Therefore,  with  a  little  variation, 
i  r.v.iy  ufe  the  language  of  an  infpired  writer  ;  "  Sliov^ 
me  thy  fncerity  without  thy  external  cbedienee  to  the  ap- 
pointments of  Chrift  J  and  I  will  iliow  thee  my  fncerity 
by  my  external  obedience  to  them," 

Whether  ftncerely  departing  f/om  God's  pofluve  com- 
mands, be  as  plealing  to  him  as  fmcer  e  external  confor- 
mity, will  more  fully  appear  in  what  follows.  * 

When  God  had  fciit  Samuel  to  anoint  Saul  king-Over 
the  chofen  tribes,  he  thought  proper  to  try  his  loyalty, 
by  fending  him  to  deftroy  the  Amalekitcs,  for  their 
cruelty  to  his  people  when  they  came  up  out  of  Egypt. 
The  command  was.  Utterly  diflroy  all  that  they  have,  and 
fpiirc  iher.i  not  ;  hut  fay  both  man  and  ivonian,  infant  and 
fiichlin^,  ox  and  fjeepy  annel  and  af.  Saul  went  with  his 
chofen  band,  and  fprcad  death  and  carnage  through 
H^malek's  devoted  country  !  He  undoubtedly  returned 
froip  the  victorious  field,  in  full  confidence  of  meeting 
tl'.3  proi:het's  approbation.    But  while  coming,  God 


112 


Godly  Sincerity. 


made  known  to  Samuel,  that  Saul  had  turneel  back  from 
folloiving  him.  When  Samuel  came  forth  in  the  morn- 
ing, Saul  met  him,  and  thus  addrefled  him  : — «  BlelTed 
be  thou  of  the  Lord,  I  have  performed  the  command- 
ment." Although  he  had  not  gone  to  the  exteait  of 
the  commandment,  yet  he  might  fincerely  think,  as  he 
had  made  ample  provifion  for  one  of  the  richeft  facrifi- 
ces  that  ever  fmoaked  upon  the  Jewilh  altar,  that  in 
thus  doing,  he  fliould  be  '  as  ivell  accepted,'  as  though 
he  had  wholly  followed  the  divine  command.  We 
may  fuppofe  his  foul  almoft  in  an  ecftafy,  fully  expeft- 
ing  the  prophet's  benediftion  ;  when,  to  his  furprife, 
the  grieved  Seer  thus  interrogates — What  tneaneth  this 
bltatiiig  of  the  JJjcep  in  mine  ears  !  and  the  lonuing  of  the 
oxen  ivhich  I  hear  ?  What  meaneth  this  ?  Why,  the 
people  /pared  the  hcfl  of  the  Jhecp  end  oxen,  to  do  facrifce  to 
the  Lord  thy  God.  A  very  pious  defign  indeed  !  Who 
would  challenge  their  fincerity  ?  I  do  not  recolleft  that 
the  prophet  charged  Saul  with  hypocrify,  or  infinceri- 
ty  j  but  with  the  want  of  external  obedience.  I  fliall 
not  pretend  to  fay  that  Saul  had  any  godly  fincerity,  or 
that  he  had  not  ;  but  it  is  evident  until  this  time,  that 
his  charafter  was  unimpeached,  and  he  was  honoured 
as  the  Lord's  anointed. 

Another  inftance  ftill  more  to  our  purpofe,  prefents 
us  in  the  facred  page.  When  the  wicked  fons  of  Eli 
were  flain  by  the  Philiftines,  they  took  the  ark  of  the 
Goci  of  llrael,  and  carried  it  into  the  temple  of  their 
idol.  The  uncircumcifed  had  fcarcely  began  to  rejoice, 
when  they  found  themfelves  involved  in  ftrange  and 
unlooked  for  calamities.  Their  idol  Dagon  fell  before 
the  ark,  while  terror,  death  and  deftruftion  were 
fpreading  every  where.  The  ark  of  God  foon  became 
more  terrible  to  them  than  an  army  with  banners.  A 
general  council  was  called — they  refolved  to  fend  it 
back  inio  the  land  of  Ifrael  j  but  not  being  acquainted 
with  the  facred  oracles,  they  were  at  a  lofs  as  to  thei^ 
mode  of  conveyance.  It  was  finally  determined  to  fstnd. 
it  in  a  new  undirefted  cart,  drawn  by  two  milch-kihe:'  • 
When  it  was  come  into  the  land  (^Ifrael,  after  a  fl»ol|; 


Godly  Sinctftiy. 


lis 


'.arry  at  Bethftemefh,  it  was  carried  to  Kivjath-jcarim, 
into  the  houfe  of  Abinadab,  where  it  was  kept  for 
twenty  years,  until  David  was  eftablifhed  upon  tiie 
throne.  After  this,  he  afTembleJ  thirty  thoufand  chofen 
men,  with  a  view  to  bring  the  ark  of  the  God  of  Ifrael 
up  into  the  city  of  David. 

This  ark  by  divine  appointment  was  to  be  borne  by 
the  priefts,  by  the  ftaves  which  went  tilrough  the  rings 
of  it.  But  as  the  inftituted  mode  might  appear  rather 
inconvenient  at  this  time,  they  might  think  the  one 
adopted  by  the  Philiftines  would  do  as  well.  And  as 
they  might  call  to  mind,  that  "  God  delighted  more  in 
mercy  than  in  facrifice  j"  both  David  and  his  people 
\eryji>;cert'ly  concluded,  that  it  would  do  to  carry  it  in 
a  decent  new  cari.  But  the  way  being  rough,  and  the 
oxen  unaccuftomed  to  this  hallowed  bufinefs,  fo  agitat- 
ed the  facred  ark,  that  Uzzah  put  forth  his  hand  and 
took  hold  of  it.  And  the  anga-  of  ike  Lord  was  k'nidUd 
u^cithl  Uzz/th,  and  God  fmote  htm  there  fir  his  error,  and 
there  he  died  by  the  ark. 

What  there  was,  either  in  the  conduct  or  difpofltioR 
of  Uzzah,  which  was  fo  offenfive  to  the  Divine  Being, 
as  to  mark  him  out  as  a  monument  of  facied  difpleafure, 
is  perhaps  unknown  to  mortals.  It  is  evident  that  Da- 
vid did  not  difcover  any  crimiualiry  in  tue  conduct  of 
Uzzah  ;  for  if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  bten  dif- 
pleafed  becaufe  the  Lord  made  a  breach  upon  him. 
There  was  at  leaft  the  appearance  of  Juicere  regard,  in 
his  attempting  to  fteady  the  agitated  ai-k.  But  God 
feeth  not  as  man  feeth  ;  and  has  ever  been  jealou.;  for 
his  own  honour  as  lawgiver,  vvlach  glory  he  will  not 
give  to  another. 

This  alarming  providence  checked  their  pious  joy, 
and  put  a  fudden  period  to  all  their  tuneful  numbers. 
An  awful  fear  of  the  great  Jehovah  was  now  imprefled 
upon  their  minds.  Silent,  and  folenin,  they  retire  and 
leave  the  ark  without  the  city  ! 

Will  any  perfon  fay  that  David  did  not  go  in  the^w- 
ctrity  of  his  heart  ?  Let  thcfe  who  deny  it,  tnukt  o;:t 
tiie  proof. 


114.  G^J/y  Sh.'ceriiy.  ,  • 

It  may  perhaps  be  difficult  for  us  to  difcovcr  any- 
real  difference  in  the  dejgfi,  or Jincerity,  of,  David  and 
Jiis  people  at  this  time,  or  three  months  after,  when 
they  brought  up  the  ark  into  the  city  of  David  with 
flxouting.  But,  we  flia'l  readily  difcover  a  difference  in 
their  viiible  conduft.  In  the  former,  they  followed 
their  own  imaginations.  In  the  latter  they  went  ac- 
cording to  divine  appointment.  Their  depariing  from 
the  inftituted  way,  (however  fmcere)  drew  on  them 
God's  difplcafure.  Their  obedience  to  it  obtained  his 
approbation.  If  I  miitake  not,  Sir,  this  inllance  is  a 
fair  trial  of  your  argument,  and  it  appears  to  nic  that 
it  fails. 

I  have  one  more  obfcrvation  from  fcripture  to  make 
upon  this  head.  If  I  rightly  underftand  the  revealed 
ivill  of  God,  we  are  llridlly  forbidden  to  worfiiip  any 
creature,  however  exalted.  Fcr  ii  is  ivritietiy  thou  fhali 
luorjiyip  the  Lord  thy  God,  n;ul  kin:  onlyjhdt  thou  fervc* 

Yet  I  fnd  that  the  apoille  John  twice  fell  down  to 
worfliip  an  angel  !  I  hardly  think  you  will  fcruple  the 
iincerity  of  the  beloved  difciple  upon  this  occafion. 
The  que.n:ion  now  is,  whether  it  were  agreeable  to  the 
will  of  Chrifl:  for  John  to  vvordiip  the  angel  ?  It  is  evi- 
dent he  thought  it  to  be  his  duty  ;  and  his  conduct  has 
every  appearance  oifnctriiy.  Allowing  John  to  be f:n- 
cerc,  and  his  conduct  i;i  iliis  particular  inftance  agreea- 
ble to  the  will  of  Chriir,  tlien  the  above-mentioned 
prohibition  muft  be  undcrftood  conditionally.  "  It  is 
v/ritten,  thou  Ihak  worfiiip  the  Lord  thy  Cod,  and  him 
cfj/y  llialt  thou  ferve  ;''  urd.cfs  thou fbalt fiiicerely  think  it 
duty  to  nvoijlip  a  creature.  If  it  were  not  agreeable  to 
the  will  of  Chrift  that  John  fliould  worfliip  the  angel, 
then  it  necoiVr.ri'.y  follows,  that  a  good  perlbn  may,  in 
the  exercife  oi Jincerity,  acl  contrary  to  his  will. 

If,  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  you  fljould 
fay,  '  Although  John  ilncerely  thought  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  worfhip  the  angel,  yet  he  was  undoubtedly 
miftaken,'  this  is  to  give  up  the  argument  :  for  we 
have  always  been  willing  to  allow  that  Chriftians  may 
be fificercf  and  yet  be  miftaken  as  to  the  will  of  Chrift. 

*  Matt.  iv.  xo.  ^ 


Godly  Sitictiity. 


115 


Thai  this  was  the  cafe,  witli  either  John,  or  the  angel, 
is  abundantly  evident.  And  in  order  to  lave  your  ar- 
LTument  from  falling,  it  appears  neceffary  to  be  proved, 
either  that  it  was  agreeable  to  the  will  of  Chriit  for 
John  to  wordiip  the  angel ;  or,  that  he  was  infincere 
in  attempting  it.  Until  one  or  the  other  is  made  out, 
we  lhall  conclude  he fmccrely  attempted  to  do  that, 
which  was  exprefsly  forbidden  in  the  revealed  will  of 

!  God.  Many  more  inftances  might  be  produced,  but 
the  preceding  are  thought  fufficient,  to  ihow  the  ab- 

1  furdity  of  conlidering  ilncerity  of  heart  as  actual  ccn- 

j  formity  to  the  will  of  Chrift,  with  refped  to  his  politive 

I  iaftitutions. 

In  purfuing  your  argument  you  conclude,  thofe  per- 
lons  differ  from  Chrift,  who  '  fuppofe,  that  a  good  tree 
may  bring  forth  corrupt  fruit'  They  certainly  do,  if 
the  words  are  taken  in  a  proper  fenfe.  But  if  by  the 
i;:;^/  tree  we  undcrftand  a  Chriftian,  including  all  his 
exorcifes  both  of  ilefli  and  fpirit,  it  is  not  true,  that  he 
iii'rrJ  bring  forth  corrupt  fruit.  To  deny  this,  would  be 
•u)  aliert  that  he  is  in  a  ftate  of  fmleis  perfe(51ion  :  for 
ad  imperfect  and  depraved  creatures  can  and  do  fm. 

Now  if  good  men  have  Ibn-ie  /.c/v,  and  fome  felfifn 
defires  ;  and  are  fometimes  governed  by  pure,  and 
fometimes  by  corrupt  motives  \  how  are  we  to  know 
which  of  thefe  govern  their  conduct,  when  they  plead 
their  lincerity  in  departing  from  God's  appointments  ? 

I  conclude,  Proteftants  in  general  looic  upon  Calvin 
as  a  good  man  ;  but  as  a  tree  he  bore  fome  fruit,  which 
the  taite  of  a  modern  Chriftian  would  not  call  good  : 
particularly  his  unchriftian  refentment,  and  inhuman 
treatment  of  Servetus.*'    It  is  evident  that  Calvin,  in 

•  This  leamod  and  ingenious  Spaniard  was  born  at  Villeneuva,  in 
Aragon,  1509.  He  Iludied  the  civil  l^w  at  Toulous,  where  hd  begStl 
to  read  the  Icriptures,  and  to  be  fond  of  trinitarian  notions.  He  loon 
became  refolved  to  retire  into  Germany  and  fct  up  for  a  reformer.  He 
there  printed  two  trads,  De  Trinitatis  erroribus,  and  DialojToium  ds 
liinitate,  libri  duo;  this  fpread  his  name  throughout  all  Europe.. 
After  this,  Servetus  returned  to  Paris,  and  was  admitted  a  do&or  of 
phyfic  in  the  iinlvtrCty  there.  Here  a  correlpontlence  betwixt  Calvin 
and  him  commenced,  which  was  kept  up  for  fixteen  years  :  notvvith- 
llancing  which,  he  continued  in  his  former  opinion,  and  refolved  to 
publiih  <t  third  work  iu  favour  of  it ;  this  came  out  at  Tieuna,  in 


116 


Godly  Situertty. 


this  piece  of  conduft,  thought  he  was  doing  God  fer- 
vice.  To  fuppofe  the  contrary,  and  that  he  was  not 
ftncere,  would  be  to  fiippofo  him  a  much  greater  monjhr 
than  he  reprel'ented  cr veins,  Allov/iiig  jhis  to  be  an 
■jtdi  of  fun  erity,  and  the  qaeftion  is  fair  before  us,  Was 
it  agreeable  to  the  wiii  of  Chrift,  for  Calvin  thus  to 
perfecute  Servetus  ?  If  3'ou  fhould  anfwer  in  the  neg- 
ative, you  give  up  your  theory  ;  if  you  Ihould  anfwer 
in  the  affirmative,  then  it  will  neceffarily  follow,  that 
if  it  were  the  will  of  drift  two  hundred  and  forty 
years  ago,  that  antitrinitarians  and  anabaptifts  fhould  be 
burnt,  merely  for  their  fentiments,  it  undoubtedly  is 
agreeable  to  his  will  now,  jis  he  is  the  fame  yefterday, 
to-day,  and  forever- 

In  the  mild  reign  of  Edward  VI.  king  of  England, 
but  two  perfons  fuffered  for  their  religious  fentiments. 
And  although  thefe  perfons  were  both  put  to  death,  I  do 
not  find  that  they  were  charged  with  any  other  crime, 
^than  differing  in  opinion  from  the  ruling  party. 

witb  this  title,  Chrifti^nifmo  Reftitutio,  &c.  witliout  Iiis  name  ;  but 
Calvin  took  care  to  inforni  the  Roman  Catholicks  in  France  who  wa* 
the  author.  On  this  Servetus  was  iniprifoned,  and  would  certainly 
have  been  burned  then,  if  he  liad  not  made  his  efcape.  He  prcpof*  Jto 
retire  to  Naples,  but  was  imprudent  enough  to  go  through  Geneva, 
where  he  was  ieizcd  on  Calvin's  information,  and  prcfecutcd  for  herefy. 
All  his  public  writings  and  private  letters  to  Calvin,  were  ranfacked  ior 
every  tiling  that  could  bo  ftrained  to  a  bad  feiife  ;  in  confequence  of 
which  the  unfortunate  Sonf.tus  was  burned  alive,  Odl.  a7th,  1553, 
"  to  the  eternal  ihame  of  his  inconfiftent  brutal  reformed  perfecutorsv" 
£ervctus  was  a  man  of  great  acutcuefs,  of  prodigirus  learning,  ani 
admirably  (killed  in  his  owu  profeffion. — See  Calvin's  Life,  Glafgov/ 
edition,  p.  17,  19 — and  Northouck's  Biographical  Diiftionary. 

Calvin's  hiftorian  informs  us,  that  the  death  of  Servetus  raifed  fuch 
a  flame,  as  ftt  Poland,  Tranfylvania  and  Hungary  all  on  fire  ;  which 
he  fuppofcd  Servetu"  to  have  foretold  by  the  fpirit  of  the  devil.  Thit 
controvcriy  led  many  rationally  to  iiiqsire,  whether  hereticks  ought  to 
be  put  to  death,  or  left  to  the  judgment  of  God  ? 

That  Servetus  was  an  antitrinitavian  will  not  be  denied.  This 
probably  wa»  the  greatefl  caulc  of  Calvin's  oppoCtion  to  him,  but  rot 
the  whole  :  for  he  confidered  him  as  a  "  monfter  compofed  of  many 
ancient  and  piodigious  herefies."  He  calls  him  an  anabaptifl,  and  has 
attempted  to  anfwer  twenty  argument!  brought  by  Servetus  againft 
infant  baptifm.-^liiftitttt.  Chrift.  Kelig-  p. 


Godl'j   Sincerity.  1 1 7 

The  former  of  thefe  was  Joan  Eochcr,  commonly 
called  Joan  of  Kent.*  Archbiftop  Cranmer  was  em- 
ployed to  perfuade  the  young  king  to  fign  the  warrant 
againll:  her.  He  ufed  various  reafonings,  which  ferved 
rather  to  lilence,  than  fatisfy  the  king.  But  at  length 
he  did  it  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  telling  Cranmer,  that  if 
he  did  wrong,  fince  it  was  in  fubmiflion  to  his  authori- 
ty, he  Ihould  anfwer  for  It  to  God.  This  made  fuch  an 
impreffion  upon  the  mind  of  the  bifhop,  that  he  ufed  far- 
ther means  for  her  conviction  ;  but  as  ihe  obftinatcly 
continued  in  her  fentiraents,  flie  was  finally  burnt 
alive. 

That  Cranmer  was  Jtr.cere  in  this  piece  of  condufl,  we 
have  the  teftimony  of  bilhop  Barnet,  who  fays,  "  One 
I  thing  was  certain,  that  what  he  did  in  this  matter  flow- 
I  ed  from  no  cruelty  of  temper  in  him,  no  man  being 
farther  from  that  black  difpofition  of  mind  ;  but  it  was 
truly  the  effefl  of  thofe  principles^  by  which  he  govern- 
ed himfelf."f 

I  confefs  here  is  a  difficulty  in  my  mind  (and  proba- 
bly may  be  in  many  others)  to  conceive,  how  this  con- 
duct could  be  agreeable  to  the  all-merciful  Redeemer, 
ivho  came  not  to  dejlroy  metCs  lives,  but  to  fave  them.  It  is 
not  to  be  believed  from  any  thing  which  Chrift  has 
faid  J  but  merely  becaufe  it  was  the  fiucere  opiiaon  of 
an  arclibilhop  !  I  have  no  difficulty  in  believing  the 
fincerity  of  Cranmer,  but  I  have  not  yet  attained  to  the 
f.ulh  of  ajj'urance,  that  his  cojiduct  was  agreeable  to  the 
revealed  will  of  Chrift. 

It  may  alfo  be  obferved,  that  Mr.  John  Rogers,  that 
famous  martyr,  cordially  con  Tented  to  the  burning  of 
Join  of  Kent.  "For  (faith  Mr.  Fox)  when  the  f  ro- 
iijlani  bifhyps  had  refolved  to  put  her  to  death,  a  friend 
of  Sir.  John  Rogers,  the  divinity-reader  in  St.  Paul's 
church,  came  to  him,  earneftly  deliring  him  to  ufe  hts 
iatereft  with  the  archbiiliop,  that  the  poor  woinan's 

*  The  other  was  George  V:  n  Pare,  a  Dutchman  ;  he  was  burnt  in 
.Smithfield,  April  25,  1  JJt.  Ht  I'uiTered  with  great  conflaiicy  of  mind, 
and  kiffed  thj  flake  and  faggots  that  were  to  burn  hini.  He  isfaid  to 
have  been  a  man  of  uncommon  ftriiSnefs  of  I'fc  and  devotion.  Thefe 
perfons  were  both  Baptiils.  Vide  Hift.  Keicrm.  Vol.  ii.  lis.  i.  p.  11a. 
t  'bid. 


118 


Godly  Sincerity. 


life  might  be  fpared,  and  other  means  ufed  to  prevent 
the  fpreading  of  her  opinions. — Rogers  on  the  ot"i\er 
hand  pleaded,  flie  ouglit  to  be  put  to  death.  Well, 
then,  fays  his  fritnd*  if  you  are  rcfolvcd  to  put  an  end 
to  her  life,  together  with  her  opinion,  choofe  foms 
other  kind  of  death,  more  agreeable  to  the  gentlcnefs 
and  mercy  prefcribed  in  the  gofpel  ;  there  being  no 
need  that  fuch  tormenting  deaths  fhould  be  taken  up 
in  imitation  of  the  papills.  Rogers  anfwfired,  that 
burning  alive  was  no  cruel  death,  but  eafy  enough.  His 
friend  then  hearing  thefe  words,  which  exprefled  fo 
little  regard  to  poor  creatures'  fufferings,  anfwered  him 
with  great  vehemence — Well,  perhaps  it  may  fo  happen^ 
thai  you  yoiirfelf flmll  have  your  hands  full  of  this  mild  burn- 
ing. And  fo  it  came  to  pafs  ;  and  Rogers  was  the  firfl: 
man  Avho  was  burnt  in  Queen  Mary's  time." 

"  This  Rogers  (fays  Pierce)  was  a  nonconfrmifr,  and 
a  very  excellent  man,  and  died  nobly  in  the  caufe  of 
Chrift  ;  but  this  barbarity  of  his  deferves  to  be  expof- 
ed  J  and  the  rather,  becaufeGod  in  his  providence  feems 
to  have  fliewn  his  great  difpleafure  againfi:  it."f  If 
this  indeed  were  the  cafe,  it  could  not  be  agreeable  to 
the  will  of  Chrirt. 

It  is  quite  remarkable,  that  Cranm.er,  Ridley.,  and 
Rogers,  who  had  a  principal  hand  in  burning  thefe  two 
perlbns  in  the  reign  of  Edward,  were  all  burnt  in  the 
fucceeding  reign  of  Mary. 

I  do  not  mention  theie  things  with  a  view  of  glory- 
ing in  the  liiiferings  of  my  own  denomination,  nor  for 
the  fake  of  reproaching  others  j  but  to  Ihow  what 
enormous  cruelties  good  men  may  praclife,  under  the 
fpecious  fi;ow  of  godly  fa/cerity  and  a  zeal  for  the  truth. 

*  Suppofcd  to  be  Fox  hlmfelf. 
f  I'icrct's  Anfwerto  Nichols,  p.  33,  in  Crofjy. 


Of  Morality  -III  Externals  or  Seiiiiments  119 


SECTION  Vil. 

I   Whether  there  be  any  Morality  In  *  Externals' or  *  Senti- 
'       ments      and  ivhether  fncerity  of  heart  fecurcs  the  judg' 
iv.ent  from  error  ;  brief y  corfidered. 

SiRj  you  have  anticipated  an  objefHon  againft 
your  theory  •,  i.  e.  '  That  a  good  intention  will  fan«fiify 
a  wicked  aftion.'  We  fnall  only  notice  two  things  in 
your  anfwer.  Fir  ft  you  fay,  '  That  mere  externals  are 
neither  holy  nor  finful,  is  evident  from  this  coniidera- 
tion,  that  the  fame  modes  of  external  conduft  are  con- 
vertible to  both  good  -unA  bad  purpjfes*    But,  Sir,  is 

•  '  ore  no  morality  in  good  and  bad  purpofes  ?  You  feem 

convert  them  neither  to  one  or  the  other,  but  to  a 
.  .te  of  indifFerency.  I  fuppofe  the  fame  external 
•.nodes  of  conduct  may  be  the  *  expreffions  both  of  holy 
and  linful  affections.*  But  this  by  no  means  proves, 
that  there  is  no  morality  In  our  external  conduCi:.  If 
•-ve  are  rational  agents  (and  we  certainly  are)  whatever 
mode  of  external  conduft  we  purfue,  muft  be  our  choice, 
rather  than  any  other  j  and  how  this  can  be  without 
•r.orality,  I  am  totally  at  a  lofs. 

I  conclude,  Sir,  that  you  will  allow  that  eating  brer.d 
p.nd  drinking  wine,  are  external  acfts  ;  but  if  there  be 
no  morality  in  them,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  walle 
our  time  in  a  difpute  about  Aach  trifling  things.  I  do 
not  conclude,  however,  that  the  morality  of  the  adt  is 
merely  in  mafticating  bread,  or  in  Avallowing  wine, 
which  a  brute  may  do  as  well  as  an  intelligent  agent  ; 
but  the  cii;cumftances  which  lead  us  to  choole  and  adopt 
this  particular  mode  of  conduct,  undoubtedly  tinge  the 
uc!  with  morality. 

Your  other  obfervation  which  I  fliall  take  notice  of, 
IS  the  following,  that  <  There  is  nothing  of  a  moral 
nature  in  mere  fent'nr.oits  or  mere  externals'     If  by 

*  mere  fentimests,'  you  mean  no  more,  than  thofc  fugi- 
tive thoughts  which  flutter  upon  the  furface  of  the 


•  Alargiiial  Note,  p.  24. 


1 20         Of  Morality  in  Externals  or  Sentiments. 


brain,  as  hutterjlies  do  in  the  fun-beams,  we  fliall  not 
contend.  But,  if  by  fentimenty  we  underftand  that  re- 
fult  of  the  mind  which  leads  us  on  to  external  afts,  we 
fhall  undoubtedly  find  that  it  is  connefVed  with  the 
heart,  as  well  as  the  head.  The  fool  hath  faid,  not  in 
his  head,  but  in  his  hearty  there  is  no  God.  This  is  his 
fentiment,  and  a  very  innocent  one  it  is,  if  deftitute  of 
morality. 

You  will  permit  me  to  add  a  remark  from  a  very 
fentimental  writer.  Saith  he,  **  Error  in  judgment  and 
fentiment,  efpecially  in  things  of  a  moral  nature,  is  al- 
ways wrong  ;  and  does  not  confift  or  originate  merely 
in  any  defeft  of  the  moral  faculties  of  the  mind  ;  but 
is  of  a  moral  nature,  in  which  the  tafte,  affeflion,  or  in- 
clination of  the  heart  is  concerned  ;  and  therefore  is 
always,  in  every  degree  of  it,  morally  wrong,  and  more 
or  lefs  criminal.  Were  the  moral  faculties  of  the  mind, 
were  the  heart,  perfectly  right,  man  would  not  be  capa- 
ble of  error,  or  of  judging  wrong,  or  making  any  mif- 
take,  efpecially  in  things  of  religion.  The  natural  fac- 
ulties of  the  mind,  confidered  as  feparate  from  the  in- 
clinaiion  or  will,  do  not  lead,  and  have  no  tendency  in 
themfelves,  to  judge  wrong,  or  contrary  to  the  truth  of 
things.  To  do  fo,  is  to  judge  without  evidence,  and 
contrary  to  it,  which  the  mind  never  would  or  could  do, 
werie  not  the  inclination  or  heart  concerned  in  it,  fo  as 
to  have  influence,  which  muft  be  a  wrong  inclination, 
and  contrary  to  truth  and  to  evidence  ;  and  therefore  is 
morally  wrong  or  criminal." 

«*  Therefore,  all  the  miftakes  and  wrong  opinions 
which  men  entertain  refpe£ting  the  doBrines,  inflttutions 
and  duties  revealed  in  the  bible,  are  criminal,  and  of  a. 
bad  tendency."*  If  this  reafoning  be  true,  it  cannot 
be  faid  that  there  is  nothing  of  a  moral  nature  in  our 
fentiments. 

I  conclude  that  the  bible  exhibits  a  fair  fyftem  of 
truth,  fupported  by  rational  evidence  ;  and  were  it  not 
for  the  blindnefs  of  the  human  hearty  and  the  prejudices 
occafioned  by  ftnful  nffeclions,  men  would  yield  their 
cheerful  affent  to  truth,  in  exadl  proportion  to  the  evi- 

Hopkios's  Syd  TreatiTc  tn  the  Milieu.  Vol.  II.  p.  6i. 


Of  Morality  in  Exttrnah  or  Sentitnetits.        12  1 


dence  laid  before  them  ;  and  would  not  choofe  darkntfs 
rather  than  light.    It  is  believed  that  good  men,  (how- 
ever they  may  differ  in  opinion  here)  in  the  coming 
ftate  will  fee  eye  to  eye  :  perhaps  not  owing  fo  much 
to  the  fupei  ior  light  of  truth,  as  to  their  being  delivered 
I  from  thofe  fmful  afFe£lions  which  oppofe  the  truth. 
,  This  obfervation  will  appear  evident  from  this  confider- 
I  ation,  that  thofe  who  have  the  greateft  advantages  to 
i  know  the  truth,  often  appear  to  be  moft  oppofed  to  it. 
I  The  Jews,  who  had  the  oracles  of  God,  and  confequent- 
ly  the  beft  information  refpe<Sting  the  Meffiah,  when  he 
'  was  preached  to  them,  oppofed  and  blafphemed,  while 
t'.o  Gentiles  believed. 

l^pon  fuppofition,  that  '  there  is  nothing  of  a  moral 
'V  in  mere  fcntimems,'  why  is  uvbilief  a  crime  ?  or 
y  is  a  man  to  blame  for  being  an  infidel  P    this  is  a 
1.  ere  fentimcnt.    In  (hort,  why  do  we  blame  the  Jews 
for  accufing  and  delivering  Chrift  to  be  crucified  ?  It 
is  evident  they  did  not  believe  him  to  be  the  Son  of 
God.    The  apoftle  Peter,  after  charging  them  with 
killing  the  Prince  of  Life,  faid  to  them  ;  I<!oio,  brethren, 
Iw-J  that  through  igtwratice  \r  did  it,  as  did  alfo  your 
rulers  *    Saint  Paul  fuppofcd  that  they  did  not  know 
him  to  be  the  Mefliah  :  for,  faid  he.  None  of  the  princes 
this  world  knew  it  :   for  had  they  known  it,  they 
'.vould  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory.f    No,  they 
would  have  been  fiiocked  at  the  horrid  thought  !  But 
i   their  fent'vneiits  were  that  he  was  a  deceiver,  and  a  blaf- 
i    phemer  ;  and  they  had  a  law  given  them  by  Mofes 
I    againft  fuch,  and  by  this  law  they  faid  he  ought  to  die. 
i    And  their  external  couditH  was  to  put  him  to  death, 
j    Now  where  was  their  criminality     You  will  probably 
I    fay  it  originated  in  their  hearts,  '  where  all  real  crimi- 
I    nality  is  to  be  found  '    It  will  be  granted.    And  did 
nut  their  fentiments  originate  there  likcwife  ?   Out  of 
the  HiiAkT  proceed  evil  thouglits,  murders,  &c.  and  not 
out  of  the  head  as  unconnected  with  it. 

In  order  to  apply  the  foregoing  obfervatlons  to  the 
fiibject  before  us,  we  are  willing  to  acknowledge,  that 
we  do  not  think  a  man  to  blame,  for  fmcerely  a^king 

•  A<ns  lii.  i;.  f  J  Cor.  H.  8. 

M 


122       Of  Morality  in  Externals  or  Sentiments. 

according  to  his  confcience,  although  it  be  ever  fo  erro- 
neous. But  he  may  be  exceedingly  to  blame,  for  hav- 
ing an  erroneous  confcience.  If  we  do  not  improve 
the  beft  means  of  information  which  we  are  favoured 
with,  we  are  certainly  to  blame  for  the  negleft. 

It  is  a  maxim  in  civil  law,  <  That  a  man  is  obliged  to 
know  it  at  his  peril.'  This  holds  good  with  regard  to 
the  divine  law.  The  man  who  tranfgrefled  the  law  of 
Mofes  through  ignorance,  however  lincere,  was  never- 
thelefs  guilty  ;  and  when  it  came  to  his  knowledge  he 
was  obliged  to  offer  a  facrifice.*  And  he  who  killed 
his  neighbour  at  unawares,  without  in  the  leaft  defign- 
ing  his  death,  was  neverthelefs  doomed  to  fuffer  a  cer- 
tain punifliment  ;  for,  to  be  confined  to  a  particular 
city,  without  permiffion  upon  any  occafion  to  go  out 
until  the  death  of  the  high-prieft,  cannot  be  accounted 
otherwife.f 

Upon  the  whole,  what  reafon  can  be  given  for  our 
conftruing  the  divine  law  differently  ?  Or  why  (hould 
one  man  fee  a  revealed  truth,  and  another  under  equal 
advantages  fhould  not  ;  unlefs  the  latter  be  under 
the  influence  of  moral  blindnefs  ?  If  the  politive  in- 
ftitutions  of  the  gofpel  are  fufficiently  plain  (as  they  un- 
doubtedly are)  why  fhould  we  read  and  underftand  the 
fame  bible  fo  very  differently  ?  I  cannot  think  we  are 
both  right.  If  Chrift  has  commanded  his  people  to 
dedicate  their  infant-feed  to  him  in  baptifm,  then  we 
muft  conclude  that  all  the  Baptifl  churches  are  in  an 
error  in  this  particular.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  gof- 
pel teacheth  us,  that  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteoufnefs,  and  with  the  mouth  confejfton  is  made  unto 
falvation  5  and  that  this  confeflion  is  to  be  made  by 
every  candidate  for  baptifm  ;  then  we  muf^  fuppofe  our 
Pjedobaptift  brethren  are  in  an  error,  in  not  infifting 
upon  the  fame  vifiblc  qualifications  which  the  apoflles 
did.  In  fhort,  can  it  be  fuppofed  that  the  fame  divine 
law,  which  enjoins  either  the  one  or  the  oihcr^  can  ap- 
prove of  the  ncgleft  ?  If  not,  it  mufl  neccfTarily  fol- 
low, that  if  you  are  right,  we  are  wrong  ;  and  fo  vice 
•verfa- 


I  Ni>:vili.  XXXV.  25. 


Of  Morality  in  Externals  or  Sentiments. 


12S 


But  it  is  often  faid  by  our  opponents,  <  We  are  will- 
ing to  acknowledge  your  baptilhi  to  be  valid,  and  why 
cannot  you  be  as  liberal  with  refpeft  to  ours  ?'  We  are 
forry  to  bear  the  charge  of  illiberality  \  but  had  much 
rather  do  it  than  violate  our  confciences.  When  per- 
fons  are  fo  liberal,  as  to  be  willing  to  divide  and  mangle 
an  inftitutionofChrift,  in  order  to  accommodate  a  pain- 
ful difpute  ;  while  it  leems  to  fhow  a  condefcending 
temper  in  them,  it  at  the  fame  time  exciies  a  fufpiciou 
of  the  jiijike  of  their  caufe.  This  kind  of  liberality  of 
fentiment  naturally  leads  us  to  recoUecT;  an  inftance  re- 
corded in  ancient  hiftory,  concerning  two  women  who 
came  to  a  certain  king,  to  decide  a  controverfy  between 
them  refpefting  a  living  child.  Each  contended  that 
Ihe  was  the  true  riotker,  and  that  the  child  was  her's. 
For  a  time,  their  claims  appeared  equally  founded,  un- 
til at  length  the  wife  king  called  for  a  fword,  and  pro- 
pofed  to  divide  the  living  child,  and  give  half  to  tlie 
one  and  half  to  the  other  !  The  woman  whofe  the 
child  was,  could  by  no  incms  confent  ;  but  would 
either  have  it  alive  undivided,  or  elfe  give  it  up  fo  to 
the  other  :  but  the  other  faid^  Let  it  be  neither  mine  nor 
thine,  but  divide  it.  To  have  divided  the  child,  would 
have  deftroyed  its  exigence  :  So  to  divide  an  inftitution 
of  Chrift,  is  to  make  it  mean  any  thing,  and  every 
thing,  and  confequently  nothing.  For  when  a  divine 
law  is  fuppofed  to  be  conditional,  and  is  to  be  left  to 
the  judgment  or  fancies  of  men  to  determine,  whether 
one  mode  of  obedience  be  not  as  acceptable  as  another, 
it  of  courfe  lofes  its  authority,  and  ceafes  to  be  a  law. 

From  the  above  argument  it  will  not  be  concluded, 
that  one  man  has  a  right  to  di£late,  or  prefcribe  a  mjode 
of  obedience  for  another  :  for  to  our  otxjn  MaJhPnije 
Jland  or  fall.  Neverthelefs,  the  divine  law  is  not  con- 
ditional, but  abfolute  ;  and  its  requirements  muft  be 
fixed  and  determinate,  although  we  may  not  underftand 
them.  One  law yZ»«//  be  to  him  that  is  home  born,  and 
unto  the  flranger  that  fojotirneth  among  you. 

To  conclude  this  Seftion,  dear  Sir,  I  wilh  you  feri- 
oufly  to  confider  your  arguments  upon  fincerity,  wheth- 
er you  have  not  carried  the  matter  too  far  ;  and 


124        Of  Morality  in  Externals  or  Sentimetrts. 


whether  they  are  not  calculated  in  fome  inftances,  to 
differve  the  caufe  of  Chrift,  and  ftrengthen  the  hands 
of  error.  For  admitting  that  either  you  or  we  are  in 
an  error  with  refpefl  to  one  of  the  inftitutions  of  Chrift, 
yet  as  your  fentiments  affure  us,  that  if  we  fincerely 
think  we  are  right,  *  We  are  as  well  accepted  in  the 
fight  of  God,  as  if  our  external  conduit  had  been  ac- 
cording to  his  appointments,'  fhall  we  not  be  apt  to 
releafe  ourfelves  from  a  painful  inquiry  into  the  evi- 
dences for,  and  againft  our  particular  fentiments  ;  and 
coEcIude  to  Aide  fmoothly  on,  in  the  good  old  way 
which  our  fathers  went  ;  and,  perhaps,  have  no  higher 
reafon  to  believe  it  to  be  right,  than  becaufe  they  be- 
lieved it  to  be  fo  ? 

It  is  often  faid,'  « "When  we  get  to  heaven,  we  (hall 
not  be  aflced  what  particular  principles  we  were  of 
This  objeftion  implies  too  great  an  indifferency  to  the 
requirements  of  truth  ;  and  leads  us  to  fuppofe  that 
Eiany  determine  to  get  to  heaven  as  cheap  as  they  can. 
And  whenever  perfons  would  wifli  a  releafe  from  the 
toil  of  inquiry,  and  expenfe  of  retraftion,  they  may  im- 
prove your  arguments  as  a  cordial  auxiliary. 

But  were  we  even  to  grant  fincerity  to  be  a  term  of 
communion,  yet  ihould  we  not  be  obliged  to  fix  upon 
fome  external  a£ts  of  obedience,  as  evidential  of  fincer- 
ity ?  Or  are  we  to  judge  a  man  to  be  fincere  by  the 
looks  of  his  face  .''  Or  by  the  tindture  of  his  thoughts  ? 
Or  are  we  to  believe  it  becaufe  he  profeffes  to  be  fin- 
cere  ?  Perhaps  the  man  was  never  yet  found  propa- 
gating any  fentiment  of  religion  whatever,  who  would 
own  himfelf  infinceret 

Jf  Jwcerity  be  the  only  thing  fought  for,  and  agree- 
m^fin  fentiment  unnecelTary  to  Chriftian  fellowfhip, 
then  we  may  open  the  door  wide,  and  receive  all  who 
appear  to  be  fincere,  however  erroneous,  and  by  what- 
ever tiames  diftinguifhed,  wherever  they  appear  fincere. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  one  atfl  in  the  circle  of  Chriftian 
dutVj  which  exprefl^es  more  fellowlhip,  than  communi- 
cating at  the  Lord's  table.  And  if  we  can  occafionally 
communicate  together,  why  can  we  not  ftatedly  ?  We 
fiiall  alfo  be  led  farther  to  inquire,  upon  what  principle 


Of  Morality  in  Ekternah  or  Sentiment  J,  125 


is  reparation  to  be  juftified  ?  Why  did  the  Proteftants 
come  out  from  the  church  of  Rome  i  There  were  un- 
doubtedly many  fincere  Chriftians  in  that  church,  not- 
withftanding  the  body  of  clergy  might  be  thought  to 
be  corrupt.  Why  did  the  diifenters  leave  the  church 
of  England,  and  the  independents  the  prelbyterians,  and 
thefe  diflent  one  from  another  ?  It  would  be  unchar- 
itable to  fuppofe,  that  there  were  not  many  fincere 
Chriftians  in  thofe  churches.  Objedtions  fimilar  to 
thofe  now  mentioned  have  in  faft  taken  place. 

When  pi  ejbyterianifm  was  about  to  be  eftabliflied  by 
the  Britifti  government,  the  aflembly  of  divines  at  Weft- 
minfter  appointed  a  committee  to  hear  and  anfwer  the 
petition  of  thofe  who  Ihould  not  conform  to  the  gov- 
ernment. 

To  thefe  the  independents  prefented  their  requeft, 
Dec.  4th,  le  ts,  which  was  only  this  :  <  That  they  may 
not  be  forced  to  communicate  as  members  in  thofe  par- 
ifhes  where  they  dwell  ;  but  may  have  liberty  to  have 
congregations  of  fuch  perfons  who  give  good  teftimony 
of  their  godlinefs,  and  yet  out  of  a  tendernefs  of  con- 
fcience  cannot  communicate  in  their  pariflies,  but  do 
voluntarily  offer  themfelves  to  join  in  fuch  congrega- 
tions.' 

To  this  the  aflembly  gave  a  flat  denial,  Dec.  15th. 
The  independents,  unwilling  to  lofe  the  privileges  of  the 
eftablifliment,  made  the  following  concefllon.  «  That 
they  would  maintain  occafional  communion  in  their 
churches."  But  ftill  their  prefbyterian  brethren  would 
not  allow  them  feparate  congregations.  They  rather 
improved  this  compliance,  to  ftrengrhen  their  argu- 
ments againft  granting  fuch  liberty.  "  If  (fay  they) 
they  may  occafionally  exercife  thefe  afts  of  communion 
witla  us  once,  a  fecond,  or  a  third  time,  witliout  fin  ; 
we  know  no  reafon  why  it  may  not  be  ordinarily  with- 
out fin,  and  then  feparation  and  church-gathering 
would  have  been  needlefs.  To  feparate  from  thofe 
churches  ordinarily  and  vifibly,  with  whom  occafional- 
ly  you  may  join  witliout  fin,  feemeth  to  be  a  moft  un- 
juft  feparation."* 

*  Schifm  tried  and  condcmnen,  p.  2j,  a?,  a8.  in  Crclby, 
m2 


126  Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towards  Chrif  iait  Brelhrcr.. 


Every  candid  reader  will  judge,  whether  the  quef- 
tions  now  fuggefted,  are  not  involved  in  the  idea  of 
occafional  communion,  upon  the  term  of  finceritf. 
Another  interefting  queftion  appears  to  be  connected, 
viz.  Whether  it  be  confiftent  to  communicate  with  any 
perfon,  or  body  of  Chriilians,  with  whom  we  could  not 
unite  in  full  fellowfliipj  as  members  of  the  fame  ci\urch  ? 
If  there  be  any  acl  more  folemn,  more  expreffive  of 
unity  and  agreement,  let  it  be  pointed  out  !  For  per- 
fons  to  feparate  from  each  other,  merely  on  account  of 
difagreement  in  f<.ntiment,  and  yet  hold  occiifional  com- 
munion (which  exprefles  their  agreement)  is  the  height 
of  abfurdity. 

Upon  the  whole,  if  '  baptifm  was  prior  to  coming  to 
the  Lord's  table  in  the  apoftolic  praiSlice'  (which  you 
have  acknowledged,  p.  13) — if  it  was  then  an  immer- 
fion  upon  a  profeflion  of  faith,  which  I  truft  has 
been  made  ^out  in  the  preceding  pages  j  and  no 
fcripture  ev^jd^ce  appearing  to  the  contrary  j  then 
you  will  not  blame  us  for  corttiuul-ig  in  the  apojlohc 
doElriney  and  for  endeavouring  carefully  to  imitate 
their  praclke.  Hence  it  is  probable  our  obje8ions 
may  continue,  until  proof  fliall  be  made  out  from  the 
word  of  God,  that  the  apoilolic  church  did  admit  per- 
fons  to  her  communion  merely  upon  the  footing  of fin- 
cerity,  without  any  regard  to  the  exiei  -lal  mode  of  their 
obedience  to  Chrift's  other  appointments. 


,  SECTION  VIII. 

Whether  the  Divine  CuiuhiB  towards  us  be  the  Rule  of 
Duty  towards  eur  Ch/flian  Brethren y  nithtr  than  God's 
revealed  Will  ;  briefly  coufidered. 

It  will  be  readily  granted,  that  feme  parts  of  the 
divine  condu£t  are  to  be  imitated  by  all  who  loVe  God. 
Yet  our  obligation  to  he  followers  of  God  as  dear  children^ 
^oss  not  originate  fo  much  from  what  he  does^  as  from 


0/  the  Rule  of  Duly  to-awds  Chri/liati  Brdhrvtu  127 

It  he  commends.  Therefore,  we  are  not  to  imitate 
divine  conduft,  in  any  thing  which  would  lead  us 
aary  to  his  revealed  will. 

There  are  Ibme  parts  of  the  divine  condutTl,  whlth  it 
v.ould  be  iiighly  improper  for  us  to  attempt  to  imitate  ; 
j  fuch  as  the  following  :  He  fufpcndcd  the  cftabliOied 
]aw5  of  nature,  "  and  held,  t\>c  falling  day,"  until  Ifrael 

J.  gained  tlie  vi^ftury  over  his  enemies.    He  arreflred 
..an  in  its  courie,  and  ccinpelled  its  waters  to  retire, 
made  a  p  ifiage  for  his  chofen  tribes.    Ht  opened 

;  r:50uth  of  Balaam's  afs,  anclcaiifed  t!ie  ftupid  brute 
.  rtprove  the  more  brutilh  prophet.  He  comiTranded 
.  .  juham,  as  a  teft  of  his  love  and  obedience,  to  od'er 

1  his  beloved  fon  for  a  facrifice  ;  and  it  is  certain  he 

j.ily  apj'ioved  of  Abraham's  conduct,  and  bleffed  his 
■jferved  obedience.    I  prellnne  no  one  will  infer 

,m  this,  that  we  are  to  exprofs  our  love  to  God  by 
r.'.crificing  oar  children  to  him.  God  has  at  feveral 
times  deilroyed  his  enemies  by  fire  from  heaven  ;  but 
when  the  tv.'o  difciples  were  defircus  of  puaiihing  the 
ungrateful  Samaritans  in  the  fame  way,  Jefus  reproved 
their  bhnd  zeal,  and  told  them  plainly,  they  knew  not 
w!  at  fpirit  they  were  of.* 

luftances  might  be  multiplied  from  fcripture,  to  fliow, 
that  the  divine  condudt  is  not  in  all  cafes  the  rule  of  our 
duty  ;  but  you  have  fuppofed  which  you  conclude 
is  worthy  of  our  imitation — It  lhall  now  be  the  fubjeit 
of  our  inquiry. 

You  take  it  for  granted,  that  God  communes  with 
the  Psdobaptifts  at  his  holy  table  ;  and  hence  afk, 
«  Why  cannot  you  commune  with  thofe  at  the  table, 
with  whom  God  communes  ?'  As  this  quertion  was 
anticipated  in  my  other  Piece,  you  have  from  thence 
Introduced  the  following  reply,  i.  e.  ♦  It  is  not  what 
God  can  or  does  do,  but  his  revealed  will,  v/hich  is  the 
rule  of  our  duty.'  On  this  you  obferve,  '  I  hope.  Sir, 
I  fiiall  never  obje£t  to  your  making  the  revealed  will  of 
God  the  rule  of  your  duty.  But  this,  Sir,  is  a  part 
'  of  his  revealed  will,  Be  ye  followers  of  God,  as  dear  chil- 
dren.   And  if  God  be  willing  to  commune  with  Psedo- 


*  Gsji.  xk.  34.    a  Kings  i.  to.   Luke  ix.  54. 


128  Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towirds  Chrifttan  Brethren, 


baptifls,  why  fliould  you  be  unwilling  to  imitate  his  ex- 
ample in  this  refpeft  !' 

You  will  permit  me,  Sir,  to  inquire,  whether  you  fin- 
cerely  think,  that  the  apoftles  had  particular  reference 
to  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  when  he  exhorted 
the  Ephefians  to  be  foUoivers  of  God  ?  If  he  had  not,  it 
affords  no  proof  for  your  argument.  If  this  were  his 
obje£l,  he  muft  be  underftood  as  addrefEng  them  in  the 
following  manner  :  Brethren,  God  communes  with 
you,  and  why  cannot  you  commune  with  one  another  ? 
Be  ye  follonuers  of  Godf  as  dear  children.  Bat  was  the 
church  of  Ephefus  at  this  early  period  fo  divided,  that 
they  did  not  hold  vifible  communion  together  ?  Were 
there  then  in  the  church  Paedobaptifts,  and  Anti-paedo- 
baptifls,  who  had  fetup  feparate  communions  ?  When 
this  is  fairly  proved,  we  ought  to  believe  it.  You  go 
on  to  fay — '  Suppofing  that  the  Psedobaptifts  are  really 
in  an  error  ;  if  Chrift  does  not  view  the  error  as  fo 
effential,  but  tliat  he  will  commune  with  them,  why 
fhould  you  ?  Is  the  fervant  greater  than  his  lord  ?' 
By  no  means  :  for  the  fervant  ktiiyweth  not  nvtmt  his  lord 
doeih.  And  although  he  giveth  rules  to  his  fervants  to 
regulate  their  conduiH:  by  ;  yet  he  is  not  particularly 
bound  by  them  himfelf.  But  you  feem  to  fuppofe,  that 
Chrift  communes  with  you  in  a  certain  fenfe,  in  which 
we  are  unwilling  to.  But  how  arc  we  to  underftand 
you  .''  Surely  not  that  Chrift  comes  perlbnally  among 
you,  or  that  he  aftually  communes  with  you  in  the 
bread  and  wine  .''  If  not,  we  muft  fuppofe  it  is  fpiritu- 
ally ;  i.  e.  he  may  own  and  blefs  you,  notwithftand- 
ing  there  may  be  fome  imperfections  in  your  obedience. 
But  are  we  unwilling  to  commune  with  you  fpiritually  ? 
Have  not  all  good  men,  as  far  as  they  have  the  knowl- 
edge of  each  other,  communion  in  this  fenfe  ?  And  do 
they  not  heartily  approve  of  alljincere  Chriftians,  as 
far  as  they  view  them  walking  in  the  truth  ?  We  may 
not  from  hence  infer,  that  Chrift  approves  of  the 
errors  of  any,  or  that  the  moft  profufe  charity  requires 
it  of  us. 

To  fuppofe  that  the  Psedobaptifts  are  in  an  error, 
and  that  this  is  of  fuch  a  nature  that  Chrift  could  not 


Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towards  Chrifiian  Brethren.  1 29 


I  commune  with  or  blefs  them,  would  it  not  be  to  fup- 
f  pofe  it  fatal,  and  inconfiftent  with  their  eternal  falva- 
.  tion  ?  And  fliould  it  be  granted,  <  that  God  communes 

(at  his  table  with  the  pure  in  heart  of  both  denomina- 
tions,' yet  never  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as  to  approve  of  the 
errors  of  either, 
i  That  God  has  communed  with,  or  blefled  good  men, 
j  notwithftanding  they  were  guilty  of  fome  errors,  will 
j  appear  from  what  follows  : — It  is  faid  of  Solomon,  that 
:  he  loved  the  Lord,  and  walked  in  the  ftatutes  of  David 
j  his  father  ;  only  he  facrihced  and  burnt  incenfe  in  high 
I  places.  The  fame  is  faid  of  Jehoafh,  and  Jotham,  that 
;  they  did  that  nuhich  was  right  in  the  ftght  of  the  Lord  :  hut 
^  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away  :  the  fteople fiill  fucrificed 
I  and  buint  incetfe  in  the  high  places*  We  can  here  only 
I  conceive,  that  God  approved  of  what  was  right  according 
I  to  his  commandments  ;  whrle  he  wholly  condemned 
their  facrifices  in  high  places  and  groves. 

When  the  ordinance  of  tlie  paflbver  had  not  for  a 
long  time  been  obferved  as  it  was  written,  king  Heze- 
kiah  iflued  his  proclamation,  fummoning  all  ifrael  to 
attend  the  folemn  feaft.  But  when  the  people  came 
j  together,  many  of  them  had  not  thofe  external  qualifi- 
cations which  the  ordinance  required  •,  and  confcquent- 
ly  did  eat  the  pajlver  otherwife  than  it  was  written  :  hut 
.Hezeltah  prayed  for  them,  faying^  The  good  Lord  pardjn 
,'v'ry  one  that  prep.ireth  his  heart  to  feek  God,  the  Lord  God 
■  r  fathers,  though  he  be  not  cteanjed  according  to  the pitri- 
■:ni  of  the  fnncluiiry.\  Hence  it  is  evident,  that  they 
v  '.re  in  fome  degree  guilty,  for  omitting  thofe  external 
pre-requifites  which  the  ort'inance  required  notwith- 
ftanding they  prepared  their  hearts  to  feek  the  Lord. 
If  this  were  not  the  cafe,  they  could  not  have  needed 
a  pardon,  for  this  ever  fuppofcs  guilt.  Thus  wlille  they 
experienced  the  divine  approbation  in  preparing  their 
hearts  to  feek  God,  they  needed  his  pardon  for  fome 
externa',  omiflions. 

You  will  recolleiH:,  Sir,  that  you  have  given  it  as  your 
opinion,  '  'I'hat  the  ejjlnce  of  i.iptifm  doe;;  not  confiit  ia 

♦  I  Kirgs  iii.  3.    2  King;  xiL  I,  j.andiv  ,u,  3J. 
t  %  Chron.  r.\x.  \%,  19 


1 30  Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towards  Chrijiian  Brethren, 


any  one  particular  mode  whatever.'  Undoubtedly  this 
may  be  faid,  with  as  much  propriety,  refpedting  com- 
munion j  that  the  ejfetice  of  it  does  not  confift  in  any 
particular  mode  whatever  ;  but  in  right  afFe£tions  of" 
heart. 

If  this  cbfervation  be  juft,  that  the  eflence  of  an 
ordinance  does  not  confift  in  the  externals  of  it,  but  in 
fincerity  of  heart  ;  and  that  Chriftian  communion  does 
not  require  agreement  in  fentiment,  but  only  a  union  of 
*  affections  and  defires  ;*  in  this  fenfe,  I  prefume,  the 
Baptifts  and  Pxdobaptifts  do  cordially  commune. 

In  remarking  upon  the  motto  of  my  other  Piece, 
you  have  faid,  '  There  muft  be  a  union  bctwen  God 
and  man,  or  they  cannot  commune  togeiher — there 
muft  be  a  cordial  union.  We  muft  love  the  fame  ob- 
jeCls  which  God  loves,  and  hate  that  which  he  hates,' 
You  fuppofe,  *  the  fame  kind  of  agreement  is  eflential 
to  our  walking  together.'  Now,  Sir,  if  this  cordial  af- 
feftion  and  union  can  fully  exift,  and  we  difagree  in 
one  divine  inftitution,  why  can  it  not,  and  we  difagree 
in  another  ?  Why  is  it  thought  more  elTential  to  our 
Chriftian  fellowftiip  and  union  to  be  agreed  in  the  or- 
dinance of  the  fupper,  than  in  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm  Or  are  there  any  reafons  for  exalting  the  former 
fo  much  above  the  latter  ?  If  agreement  in  fentiment 
be  neceflary  to  our  Chriftian  fellowftiip,  then  it  can  be 
of  no  confequence  for  us  to  be  agreed  in  the  ordinance 
of  the  fupper.  For  according  to  this  argument,  two 
perfons  or  churches  may  enjoy  mutual  communion  to- 
gether, although  one  of  them  ihould  partake  of  the 
bread  and  wine,  and  the  other  fit  by  at  the  fame  time 
and  not  partake. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  fee  nothing  to  forbid  this  conclu- 
fion,  That  we  do  commune  with  the  Paedobaptifts  in 
the  fame  fenfe  which  God  does.  We  may  not  indeed 
in  the  fame  degree,  as  we  have  not  the  fame  degree  of 
knowledge,  with  refpefl  to  their  conformity  to  his  moral 
image,  or  pofitive  requirements  i  but  fo  far  as  we  fee 
them  bearing  the  image  of  truth,  fo  far  we  love  and  ef- 
teem  them. 


Of  the  Rule  ef  Duty  towards  Chriflian  Brethren.  1 3 1 


But,  Sir,  do  you  conceive  that  God  communes  with 
you  in  a  higher,  or  different  fenfe,  in  the  ordinance  of 
the  fupper,  than  what  he  does  in  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tifm  ?  If  not,  why  may  you  not  draw  an  argument 
equally  forcible  from  that,  to  urge  us  to  a  compliance 
with  your  mode  of  baptifm  ?  I  am  willing  to  own,  that 
I  am  enthufiaftic  enough  to  believe,  that  God  ?.s  really 
manifefts  his  all-approving  prefence  with  us  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptiftn,  as  in  that  of  the  fttpper.  But,  fliould 
vjQ  from  hence  urge  the  propriety  of  your  adopting  our 
mode  of  baptifm,  without  producing  any  other  proof  in 
fiipport  of  it,  would  you  think  the  argument  conclufive  ? 
Moft  certainly  you  would  not. 

You  have  taken  it  for  granted,  that  God  com- 
munes with  the  Paedobaptifts,  and  that  his  example 
i'-  worthy  of  imitation.  But  have  we  not  as  much  rea- 
ibn  to  believe,  that  the  baptifm  of  Chrift  by  an  immer- 
fion  in  Jordan,  was  defigned  as  an  example  for  believ- 
ers through  every  age,  as  that  his  communing  with  your 
denomination  is  defigned  as  an  example  for  us  to  imi- 
tate ?  But,  the  facrilegious  practice  of  imitating  Jefus 
Chrift  in  his  baptifm,  has  been  loudly  exploded,  by 
the  united  efforts  of  two  learned  gentlemen,*  in  a 
publication  with  this  extraordinary  title,  "  The  Baptifm 
of  Jtftis  Chnfly  not  to  he  imitated  by  Chrifians."  A  perfon 
cannot  refleft  upon  this  title  a  moment,  without  con- 
cluding, that  feme  Piedobaptifts  cautioufly  endeavour 
not  to  imitate  the  baptifm  of  Jefus  Chrift  !  We  can 
hardly  forbear  alklng,  Who  do  they  mean  to  imitate  ? 
Surely  not  John  ;  for  they  fay  he  was  under  the  law. 
Not  Chrift,  becaufe  he  was  baptized  before  his  death. 
Not  Philip,  and  the  Eunuch,  for  they  ivent  dcw/t  both 
J.NT0  THE  WATCR.  Not  the  primitive  church  ;  for  we 
are  authorized,  upon  the  teftimony  of  Paedobaptifts 
themfelves,  to  fay,  that  imirvrfi  ?}  was  theuniverfal  prac- 
tice (except  in  particular  c;iic.s)  for  nearly  thirteen  hun- 
dred year:  after  the  Chriftian  lera. 

We  cheerfully  acknowledge  that  this  is  not  the  cafe 
with  us  •,  for  v/e  do  really  endeavour  to  imitate  the  bap- 
tifm of  Lhri/1  ;  nor  did  we  ever  yet  feel  confcious  of 


•  MffTrs.  Fj{h  and  Craac. 


132  0/*  the  Rule  of  Duty  iowards  Chrijlian  Brethren. 


reproof,  for  the  prefumptuous  aft  !  It  is  argumer\t 
of  no  fmall  weight  in  the  minds  of  many,  that  our 
baptifm  Is  an  imitation  of  his,  who  has  taught  us  to 
take  up  our  crofs  and  follow  him.  Were  it  not  ne- 
ceflary  to  invite  you  to  follow  an  example  fo  evidently 
defigned  for  imitation,  I  might  addrefs  you  in  the  fpon- 
taneous  language  of  a  text  preffed  into  your  fervice  ; 
Be  ye  folloivers  of  God,  as  dear  children. 

Should  you  think  the  queftion  not  fully  anfwered  by 
what  has  been  already  obferved,  and  ftill  inquire,  '  If 
God  communes  with  the  Piedobaptifts,  why  fhould  you 
be  unwilling  to  follow  his  example  ?'■ — I  would  wifh  to 
afk,  "Whether  you  would  think  it  duty  for  us  to  be  fol- 
lowers of  God,  otherwife  than  according  to  the  rules 
laid  down  in  his  word  ?  You  will  permit  me  to  remind 
you,  that  you  have  acknowledged,  that  thofe  rules  re- 
quire baptifm  antecedent  to  communion.  'I'his  is  evi- 
dently your  meaning  when  you  fay,  '  I  do  not  deny  that 
baptifm  wz?,  prior  to  coming  to  the  Lord's  table  in  the 
apoftolic  praftice.  I  fuppofe  it  was.'  I  iuppofe  fo  too. 
Sir  5  and  would  beg  to  know,  whether  there  has  been 
any  different  7-ule  of  praftice  eftablifhed  iince  i  If  fo, 
by  whom  was  it  done,  and  by  what  authority  ^  If  the 
fyllemof  infplration  was  clofed  by  the  apoftles,  then 
undoubtedly  the  praftice  of  the  church,  as  recorded  by 
them,  is  a  proper  rule  for  us.  To  this  you  feem  t9  af- 
fent  (though  with  a  degree  of  caution)  when  you  fay, 
'  I  aiTo  fuppofe  their  example  to  be  worthy  of  imitation 
in  like  circumftances.'  As  if  fome  circumftances  might 
take  place,  which  might  make  it  ncceflary  to  alter  the 
7r.odc  or  order  of  divine  inftitutions.  But,  Sir,  if  inftitu- 
tions  are  divini;,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  circumQanceSy 
h(i\vt'ver  combined,  or  any  thing  elfe  fhort  of  the  power 
vs'l'.iii  i:,:.'J>e  them,  to  alter  either  mode  or  order.  Some 
c'r  i.  ,1  :  .cer,  may  render  it  necefiary  to  omit,  but  never 
to  alter  an  iri'litm ion.  The  moment  we  alter  an  infti- 
tutiop.,  we  clef*  10/  its  authority.  It  can  no  longer 
claim  the  aigii  prAiiejj;e  of  ^  divine  origin;  but  muft 
be  looked  upon  ai  the  bife-born  offspring  of  human 
i/ivefitic:. 


Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towards  Chrijlian  Brethren.  133 


That  there  can  be  circumftances  in  our  prefent  fitua- 
tion  which  may  render  it  neceflary,  or  even  juftifiable, 
to  depart  from  the  apo/lolic  prailice,  I  cannot  conceive. 
Yet  here  we  are  not  fo  happy  as  to  be  agreed  in  opin- 
ion ;  for  you  fay — '  I  am  not  certain  that  there  can  be 
no  circumftances  in  which  it  might  be  lawful  to  admit 
to  the  Lord's  fupper  prior  to  baptifm.'  Efpecially  if 
the  mode  of  baptifm  be  immerfion.  '  For  a  real  Chrif- 
tian  may  for  many  years  be  fubjefted  to  fuch  bodily 
dlforders,  that  it  would  be  prefumption  rather  than 
duty,  to  be  plunged  all  under  water  ;  and  yet  at  certain 
t'.nes  he  might  be  able  to  attend  the  ordinance  of  the 
l.crd's  fupper.  And  muft  he  be  debarred  this  privilege, 
:  forbidden  this  duty,  merely  becaufe  he  is  unabl^p 

•  immerfed  ?'* 

It  appears  to  me,  Sir,  that  you  draw  conclufions 
without  premifes.  For  you  fuppofe  v/e  debar  a  perfon 
from  a  pnviUge  in  one  inftance  becaufe  he  is  unable  to 
do  his  duty  in  another.  I  fuppofe  you  are  miftaken  ia 
both.  For  firil,  I  do  not  believe  that  God  requires 
T\ny  duty  of  his  creatures,  which  his  holy  providence  has 
rendered  them  unable  to  perform  :  which  is  the  fup- 
■lofed'cafe  with  rcgird  to  baptifm.  Nor  fecondly,  do  I 
oelieve  that  it  is  tLe  d'.ity  or  privilege  of  any  perfon  to 
attend  one  facred  ordinance,  while  God  in  his  provi- 
dence prevents  his  attending  another,  which  has  a  prhr 
claim  on  his  obedience  ;  and  while  the  latter,  by  ♦  apof- 
tolic  praftice/  is  a  necelfary  qualification  for  the/orwfr. 
This  idea  you  have  fully  illuftrated  in  your  next  page, 
where  you  obferve,  that  <  Many  things  which  are  or- 
Jmarily  incumbent  duties  are  not  fo  in  all  circumftan- 
ces.' This  obfervation  appears  perfeiStly  ju(t,  and  the 
very  circumftance  you  have  mentioned  of  the  perfon's 
being  unbaptized,  renders  it  inconfil'lent  with  duty  for 
him  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  fupper. 

For  I  can  as  eafdy  conceive  of  its  being  a  perfon's 
duty  or  privilege  to  go  to  meeting,  while  by  the  provi- 
dence of  God  he  is  confined  at  home  as  to  belieTe 
-that  h  is  his  duty  to  go  lo  the  communion-tabie,  while 


*  Page  14. 


134    Of  the  Rule  of  Dttty  towards  Chrifiian  Brethren. 


by  the  fame  providence,  he  is  unable  to  attend  the  pre- 
vious qualifications  which  the  inftitution  requires. 

Allowing  immerfion  to  be  eflential  to  gofpel  baptifm, 
and  a  perfon  to  become  a  real  Chriftian  when  but  nine 
years  old,  and  the  ftate  of  his  health  fuch  as  would  ren- 
der it  unfuitable  for  him  to  be  baptized,  ftiould  he  live 
to  be  nine  hundred  and  fixty-nine,  I  fhould  never  fup- 
pofe  it  to  be  his  duty  to  communicate  while  in  that  fit- 
uation  ;  nor  can  I  fuppofe  any  well  enlightened  Chrif- 
tian would  ever  defire  it. 

But,  fliould  it  even  be  fuppofed,  that  the  order  of 
the  inftitutions  might  be  difpenfed  with  in  particular 
eafes,  fo  fnr  as  to  admit  to  communion  pious  perfons, 
whofe  bodily  infirmities  would  not  allow  of  their  being 
baptized — What  then  ?  Shall  we  from  hence  argue 
to  a  general  practice,  and  admit  unbaptized  perfons  to 
communion  who  have  no  fuch  infirmities  to  plead  ;  If 
this  be  not  the  cafe,  your  argument  lofes  the  whole  of 
its  force  ;  unlefs  your  communicants  are  all  invalids  ! 

The  inconclufivenefs  of  this  argument  will  more 
fully  appear  by  attending  to  the  obfervations  you  have 
brought  to  illuftrate  it  by.  The  firfi:  is,  the  inilance  of 
David's  taking  the f^e-w  bread.  You  obferve,  *  He  was 
hungry,  and  had  need  of  it  for  the  fuflenance  and  pref- 
erviuion  o£  life  but  will  you  from  hence  conclude, 
that  it  was  laA^ful  for  David,  or  any  other  perfon  in  or- 
dinary cafes,  to  have  taken  the  haHovj.'J  bread,  when 
thcre\vas  no  fuch  neceiilty  1  If  this  be  no:  the  cafe,  it 
vnW  not  help  your  caufe  ;  for  the  matter  in  difpute  is 
not  a  cafe  of  necfftty,  but  of  fuppofed  conveniency  ; 
and  which,  in  order  to  its  being  praaifed,  muft  be  law- 
ful in  ordinary  cafes.  Your  other  obfervation  refpe£l- 
ing  a  peVlbn's  being  necefiarily  detained  from  the  houfe 
of  God,  is  much  of  the  fame  tenor  :  for  grantij^g  that  u 
perlbn's  infirmities  nuy  excuie  him  from  the  duty  of 
attending  public  worii  ip,  (hall  we  hence  infor  that  this 
is  any  e.xcufe  for  others,  or  even  for  the  fame  perfon 
when  well  ?  Surely  we  lhall  not. 

You  fuppofe  when  David  violated  a  pftlve  precept^ 
he  did  it  to  prefer ve  his  life,  and  that  in  this  fenfe  he 
conducted  himfeif  agreeably  to  the  tncrtl  Now, 


OJ  the  Rule  of  Duty  to-war  di  Chrj/lian  Brethren.  IS,', 

Sir,  when  it  can  be  made  to  appear,  thxt  a  perfon\ 
lue,  or  eternal  falvation,  depend  on  coniirunicating  at 
the  Lord's  table,  I  cannot  lay  but  in  fucUa  cafj  it  may 
be  lawful  to  go  contrary  to  pofitive  inftitutions  ;  to  de- 
part from  ap^jlolic  praRice  and  plunge  ourfelves  into 
almoft  every  inconliftency,  rather  than  a  iveak  broths 
jhould  pert/}},  for  whom  Chriji  died. 

Your  obfervations  in  favour  of  giving  the  commu- 
nion to  the  fick  w^ho  are  not  inltitutionally  qualified  to 
receive  it,  lead  us  to  compare  it  with  the  ancient  cuftora 
of  baptizing  the  c/inics. 

A  learned  hiftorlan  obferves,  "  At  firft  all  timss  were 
alike,  and  perfons  were  baptized  as  opportunity  ami 
occafion  Icrved  ;   bat  it  was  after  rellrained  to  two 

,emn  and  ftated  times  of  the  year,  viz.  Erjler  and 
I'Intfitntide'*    Thefe  included  the  fifty  days  between  : 

Yet  if  there  was  a  uecfjftty^  (as  in  caie  of  ftcknrfs  and 
danger  of  death)  they  might  be  baptized  at  any  ether 
time."*  And  notwithftanding  they  allowed  immerfion 
to  be  the  proper  mode,  yet,  in  cafe  of  danger  of  death, 
they  would  fprinkle  perfons  as  they  lay  in  their  beds. 
It  is  evident  they  overrated  the  inftitution  ;  and  your 
notion  of  giving  the  communion  to  the  fick  who  ?.re  un- 
able to  be  baptized,  has  a  little  of  the  fame  appearance. 

I  do  not  find  that  thefe  ancient  Chriftians  plead  apof- 
tolic  authority  for  tliis  praftice,  nor  did  they  allow  of 
■this  mode  of  baptifm  in  ordinary  cafes. 

But  why  (hould  it  be  thought  necelTary  for  a  real 
Chriftiian  to  receive  the  communion,  fo  long  as  his  bod- 
ily infirmities  forbid  his  being  regularly  baptized  It 
cannot  be  thought  neceffiiry  to  his  eternal  falvation  j 
for  if  a  Chriftian,  that  is  already  fecured  :  nor  that  the 
gofpel  rule  requires  it  ;  for  that  enjoins,  that  all  things 
be  dene  decently  and  in  order  :  nor  yet  the  glory  of  God  j 
for  that  never  requires  fubmillion  to  :xny  pofitive  la-w, 
but  of  thofe  who  are  capable  of  the  pofitive  pre-requi- 
fites  to  obey  it.  Hence  I  conclude,  that  every  unbap- 
tized  Chrifrian,  whofe  infirmities  may  be  fuch,  as  to 
render  it  unfuitable  for  him  to  be  baptized  and  join 
the  viCble  church,  ought  fubmiflively  to  wait,  until 


*  Dr.  Cave's  Primitive  Chriftian'.ty,  p.  194. 


-1 36    Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  tc-u-a-ds  Chrijltan  Brethren. 


God  in  his  providence  opens  a  door  for  him  in  a  regu- 
lar manner  to  approach  his  holy  table  ;  and  not  to  aft 
fooliftily  like  Saul,  who  grew  impatient  in  waiting  for 
Samuel,  and  forced  himfi-lf  and  offered  a  hurnt-offtrhig-* 

I  have  endeavoured  thus  far  to  trace  your  argument, 
and  have  net  yet  found  fufFicient  reafon  to  depart  from 
the  apojhiic  profJke  but  as  we  are  fo  happy  as  to  b«; 
agreed  in  this  point,  that  baptifm  according  to  their 
practice  was  prior  to  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  on 
this  ground  we  will  bring  the  matter  to  trial.  Now, 
Sir,  1  would  wifh  to  afk,  How  we  can  conuAcntly 
communicate  with  you  ?  If  we  communirate  with  you 
as  baptized  perfons,  we  praflically  give  up  cur  princi- 
ples j  if  we  communicate  with  you  as  utibfipiized,  then 
we  unwarrantably  depart  from  the  apoftolic  practice. 
You  cannot  be  infenfible,  my  dear  Sir,  that  this  is  the 
very  pith  of  the  controvcrfy  ;  and  that  one  or  the  other 
of  the  above  difficulties  will  inevitably  fall  to  our  11. are, 
in  cafe  we  cftablifli  communion  with  you. 

It  is  a  faiSt  generally  known,  and  wbich  we  do  not 
wifh  to  conceal,  that  we  cannot  acknowledge  ihfnttt 
■  fprinkling  to  be  gcfptl  tnp:ijin.  Could  this  be  allowed, 
the  difpute  would  be  at  an  'end,  snd  our  fentiinents  at 
.  i;  itui  wirh  it.  I'or  if  the  iiiftitution  rct^uires  no  more 
than  fprinklingi  then p'/mging  muft  be  forever  unnecefla- 
ry  ;  and  befides,  we  fiiall  be  juftly  chargeable  with  re- 
baptizing,  a  pradliice  we  condemn  as  much  as  you  dp. 
But  you  feem  to  be  willing  that  we  fl.ould  be  Baptifts, 
and  yet  blame  us  for  not  communicating  with  other 
denominations.  But,  why  do  you  not  /ay  the  axe  to  tie 
red  of  the  tree,  and  blame  us  for  being  Baptifts,  and  not 
blame  us  for  being  confiftent  ? 

I  doubt  not  but  every  unprejudiced  mind  will  readily 
perceive  that  the  matter  comes  to  this  poijit  with  ns, 
that  in  order  to  communicate  with  you,  we  muft  either 
give  up  what  you  and  we  agree  was  the  apoftolic  prac- 
tice, or  our  fentimcnts  as  Baptifts.  One  or  the  other  of 
thefe  will  be  a  rational  inference  from  our  conduit. 

From  what  has  now  been  obferved,  it  will  be  eafy  to 
perceive  the  different  fituations  we  ftand  in  to  eacii 


X  Sam.  xiii.  12. 


Of  the  Rule  of  Duty  towards  Chriflian  Brethren.  1 37 

ether.  When  perfons  join  your  churches,  who  have 
been  baptized  by  us,  I  have  never  heard  of  your  bap- 
tizing them  again.  On  the  other  hand,  vire  always  bap- 
tize thofe  who  come  from  your  churches  to  us,  unlefs 
they  have  been  immerfed  upon  a  profeflion  of  faith. 
But  is  this  difference  of  conduft  to  be  attributed  to  ca- 
tholicifm  in  you,  or  the  want  of  it  in  us  ?  By  no  means. 
The  truth  is  this,  iinmerfion  includes  fprivkling  ;  but 
fprinkling  does  not  include  immerfion  :  therefore  the 
perfon  who  is  immerfed,  is  in  your  view  lawfully  bap>- 
tized  ;  whilft  he  who  is  only  fprinkled,  is  not  fo  in 
curs.  It  hence  follows,  that,  confiftently  with  your 
fentiments  and  views  of  the  *  apoftolic  prailice^  you  may 
invite  us  to  communicate  in  your  churches  ;  while  we> 
having  the  fame  views,  cannot  invite  you. 

It  is  hoped  that  the  preceding  obfervations  will  fully 
fatisfy  our  Psedobaptift  brethren,  that  cur  reafons  for 
not  communicating  with  them  do  not  arife  from  the 
want  of  brotherly  affection  towards  them  ;  but  from  a 
confcienticus  regard  to  what  wc  underftand  to  be  the 
srder  of  the  ^ofpel. 

So  long  as  we  allow  the  gofpel  to  contain  a  complete 
fyftem  of  faith  and  pra(5lice,  we  muft  endeavour  to  fol- 
low the  rules  there  given,  rather  than  imitate  other  fup- 
pofed  parts  of  the  divine  condutSt. 

But  fhould  we  even  carry  the  matter  as  high  as  you 
have  fuppofed  ;  that  Chrift  fliould  perfonally  come  to 
one  of  your  communions,  and  actually  partake  with 
you  j  and  fhould  addrefs  you  as  his  friends,  and  bid  you 
eat  and  drink  j  I  am  not  certain  that  his  conduct  in  fo 
doing  would  call  for  our  imitation,  fo  long  as  the 
eftablifhed  laws  of  his  kingdom  remain  as  they  now 
are. 

When  Chrift  firft  commiflioned  his  difciples,  and  fent 
them  forth  to  preach  the  gofpel,  heal  the  fick,  &c. — he 
commanded  them  faying,  Go  ?ioi  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles^ 
and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not.*  Never- 
thelefs,  he  himfelf  went  into  the  borders  of  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  and  there  healed  the  daughter  of  the  Syrophe- 
aician  woman,  who  was  a  Gentile.f    He  alfo  pafled 


•  Matt.  X.  s-  t  Mark  vii.  24 — jO. 

N2 


138    Of  the  R  ule  of  Duly  toivards  Chrijhan  Brelf.  ren. 


through  Samaria  ;  converfed  with  the  woman  at  the 
ivell,  where  he  made  kno\>  n  himfelf  to  her  as  the  Mef- 
fiah.  And  afterwards,  at  the  requeft  of  the  people,  he 
tarried  two  days  ;  in  which  time  many  more  bJieved  cn 
him.*  Hence  we  fee,  that  Chrift  did  thofe  things 
vrhich  his  difciples  were  not  authorized  to  do.  There- 
fore I  conclude  we  are  to  follow  the  particular  rules 
laid  down  by  Chrift  in  his  word,  rather  than  any  fup- 
pofed  appearances  or  manifeftations  he  may  make  to 
his  people  in  any  way  whatever.  If  this  be  not  the 
cafe,  we  are  likely  to  ramble  in  eternal  uncertainty  ! 
But,  blefled  be  God,  we  have  a  more  fure  iverd  of  p-opht- 
cy,  io  ivh'ich  ive  do  ivell  to  take  heed. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  take  notice  of  the  confe- 
quences  you  have  drawn,  from  the  fuppofition  of  our 
proving,  that  a  conformity  to  our  mode  of  baptifm  is  an 
eflential  term  of  communion.  You  fay,  *  Should  this 
be  made  to  appear,  it  will  then  alfo  appear,  that  all  the 
Pa:dobaptifts,  who  have  thought  they  enjoyed  com- 
munion with  God  at  his  table,  have  been  mofl  miferably 
deluded.'  If  fo,  the  confequence  is  dreadful  indeed  ! 
Enough  to  {hock  the  tender  feelings  of  every  pious 
Pjedobaptift,  and  lay  an  effedtual  bar  in  the  way  of  their 
admitting  the  evidence  of  a  truth  fo  difgufting,  though 
fhining  with  the  greateft  clearnefs.  You  alfo  conclude, 
that  if  baptifm  in  our  mode  be  an  eflential  qualification  ; 
«  then  the  Paedobaptifts  are  eflentially  wrong  and  ivkhed 
in  coming  to  the  table  j'  and  their  conduft  an  abcmina- 
tion  in  the  fight  of  God.f  My  dear  Sir,  are  you  fo  in- 
toxicated with  fentiment  as  to  forget  your  own  fyftem  ? 
No  farther  back  than  page  20,  you  have  faid,  '  I  deny 
that  there  can  be  any  moral  evil  in  conduft  which  pro- 
ceeds from  godly  fincerity  ;  yet  I  grant  there  may  be 
natural  evil,  or  incongruity,  through  inadvertency  or 
mifapprehenfion.'  Is  it  pofllble  that  '  natural  evil'  or 
*  incongruity,'  ihould  account  for  all  the  frightful  things 
now  mentioned,  fuch  as  '  miferaole  delufio/.,'  •  tuicked' 
conduct,  even  fuch  as  is  '  ab^mitialioti  in  the  fight  of 
God  ?'  If  not,  your  argument  fails  in  one  or  the  other  : 


*  John  iv.  a6,  39,4c.       f  Pagea8. 


Of  I  he  Rule  ofDufs  tonvards  Chnfnan  Erttlren.  13f 


eitlier  )  our  concUidl:  mull  be  chargeable  with  moral  evil ^ 
or  your  coniequeiices  cannot  be  jult. 

In  your  next  page  you  go  on  to  fay,  <  Granting  that 
immerfion  be  tlie  appointed  mode  of  bapciim,  and  be- 
lievers the  itily  proper  fubjects,  yet  if  a  Pitdobaptift 

\U-j  thir.h  otherwife,  and  with  an  obedient  heart  offer 
,1  his  children  in  our  mode,  liis  conduct  is  not  charge- 
a'-le  with  any  vioni!  evil.  Ail  tlie  evil  which  is  to  be 
imputed  to  his  conduct,  is  of  the  tiatuml  kind.  And 
t!ie  perfon  in  f )  doing  is  as  well  •  accepted  in  the  fight 
Of  God,  as  if  his  external  conduiTl:  had  been  according 
to  the  appointed  mode  of  baprifm.'  It  is  pecuHar  in- 
deed, that  witii  regard  to  the  inlVitution  of  bnptifmy  you 
ll;ould  contluJc,  that  if  you  honeftly  niiftake  both  the 
JuhieBs  and  Wi;  it-,  and  praclife  in  a  way  entirely  differ- 
tJit,  it  by  no  means  hinders  the  divine  approbation  and 
acceptance  ;  but  with  regard  to  the  ordinance  of  the 
fi-pper.,  if  it  fliould  be  proved  that  you  had  as  honeftly 
made  a  nrditake  with  regard  to  a  previous  duty,  and 
have  thought  that  you  enjoyed  communion  with  God 
at  his  table,  the  confequence  muft  be,  that  you  have  all 
been  inifcrably  deluded .' 

According  to  the  above  argument,  all  that  is  necefiary 
to  render  b.iptifm  acceptable,  is  only  to  <  really  think 
you  are  right  :  hence  by  a  parity  of  reafoning,  if  you 
are  not  accepted  of  God  in  the  ordinance  of  the  fupper, 
we  muft  fuppofc  you  do  not '  really  think'  you  are  right 
when  you  come  to  the  table.  But  are  you  not  as  lin- 
cere  in  coming  to  the  Lord's  table,  as  in  offering  up 
your  children  ?  If  you  are  not,  I  lhall  join  with  you, 
that  your  conduft  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord.  But, 
allowing  you  to  be  fincere,  and  to  really  think  you  are 
right,  and  we  muft  fuppofe  that  you  have  as  much  rea- 
fon  to  think  you  have  been  '  miferably  deluded'  in  the 
Jormer,  as  in  the  latter. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  endeavoured  carefully  to  attend  to 
the  argumentative  part  of  your  Friendly  Letter,  and  have 
attempted  to  anfwer  thofe  argumer>ts  on  which  I  fup- 
pofed  you  laid  the  greateft  ftrefs  j  either  in  a  direct 
way,  or  by  ihowing  the  invalidity  of  the  evidence  by 
vvhich  they  were  fupported.    And  however  au  impar- 


uo 


Ohjtrvat'vjv.s  on  the 


tial  public  maj'  judge,  I  have  the  fatisfafllon  to  think, 
that  in  the  preceding  {hects  tae  following  particulars 
have  been  fairly  eftablithed,  by  evidence  from  fcripture, 
reafon,  and  the  concurring  teftimony  of  many  eminent 
Piedobaptift  writers.  1.  That  vifible,  or  profeffing  be- 
lievers, are  the  only  proper  JubjeBs  of  bapiifm,  known  and 
delcribed  in  the  word  of  God.  2.  That  an  entire  im- 
merfion  in  water,  is  neceflary  to  the  due  adminiftration 
of  the  ordinance.  3.  That  by  apoftolic  practice,  which 
is  a  ftanding  law  to  the  church  of  Chrirt,  baptifm  ivns, 
and  therefore  ftill  /V,  prior  to  coming  to  the  Lord's  table. 
Hence  it  follows,  by  *  neceffary  confequence,'  that  a 
conformity  to  our  mode  of  baptifm  (if  that  has  been 
proved  to  be  the  gofpel  mode)  is  to  be  confidered  as  a 
neceffary  pre-requillte  or  (if  it  fuits  you  better)  term  of 
communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  fo  long  as  we  think  it 
important  to  follow  the  '  npoJloUc  praEiice'  "We  do  not 
mean  by  this  to  dictate  to  our  brethren  of  other  de- 
nominatiom;  with  regard  to  their  terms  cf  communion  ; 
but  only  fhow  the  general  principles  on  which  we  pro- 
ceed among  ourfelves. 


SECTION  IX. 

Obfervattons  on  the  Piatt   of  Communion  propofed  in  the 

<  Friendly  Lettery  ivith  rettiarks  on  feveral  other  Things 
cotifieBed  with  the  Subject. 

Sir,  your  profeffed  defign  in  writing,  has  too 
much  of  the  appearance  of  friendlhip,  to  be  paffed  over 
unnoticed.  But  whether  if  your  plan  were  adopted, 
it  would  produce  the  defired  effect,  is  a  matter  of  feri- 
ous  inquiry. 

<  To  promote  the  peace  and  profperity  of  Zion,  by 
opening  a  door  for  free  communion  betwen  the  Baptifts 
and  Piedobaptifts,'  is  your  profeffed  objedl.  And  not- 
withftanding  I  have  appeared  upon  the  other  fide  of 


propofed  Plan  of  Communion,  is'c. 


14-1 


the  queftion,  I  perfuade  myfelf,  that  no  perfon  would 
be  happier  in  feeing  our  objeftions  fairly  removed,  and 
a  confillent  way  pointed  out  for  a  mutual  interchange 
>-^f  communions.  But  if  it  muft  be  done  at  the  expenfe 
f'  our  fenthnents  as  Baptifts,  you  will  not  think  us  nn- 

ifonable  in  requiring  ample  proof  that  we  are  wrong, 
Dcfore  we  do  it. 

The  particular  boundaries  of  your  plan  are  exprefled 
in  tlie  following  words  ;  '  It  is  not  my  defign,  nor  my 
defire,  to  have  a  door  open  for  free  communion  among 
all  who  profcfs  religion  on  either  fide  ;  but  only  with 
regard  to  thofe  whofe  ■vifible  conduct  h  evidential  of 
real  piety.'  It  is  a  little  difficult  here  to  underftand 
your  meaning.  If  you  mean  to  eftablifh  communion 
with  fome  churches  which  you  may  confider  as  ortho- 
dox in  docb  ine,  and  regular  in  difcipline,  while  you  re- 
ject others,  your  plan  may  be  practicable.  But  as  the 
terms  or  qualifications  /ou  propofe,  may  be  the  lot  of 
individuals  rather  than  churches,  it  appears  to  be  at- 
tended with  fome  difficulty.  For  it  is  reafonable  to 
fuppofe  that  in  every  Chriftian  community  there  may 
be  fome  found,  <  whofe  vifible  conducl:  is  evidential  of 
real  piety.'  With  thofe  it  feems  you  would  wiih  to 
communicate,  while  with  the  church  as  a  body  you 
could  by  no  means  hold  fellowfliip. 

In  order  to  reduce  the  idea  to  pra(rtice,  we  will  fup- 
poi'e  ten  m-cmbers  of  a  Baptill  church  in  yoxir  vicinity 
attend  at  one  of  your  communion  feafons,  with  a  defire 
XO  enjoy  privileges  with  you  ;  but  when  the  church  is 
called  upon  to  adt  upon  their  requeft,  they  inform  thole 
brethren  that  with  five  of  them  they  are  fully  fatisfied, 
and  bid  them  a  cordial  welcome  to  a  feat  in  their  com- 
iBuaion  ;  but  to  the  others  they  obferve,  they  have  not 
obtained  the  evidence  of  their  '  real  piety  and  there- 
fore muft  confcientiouilv  refiife  to  partake  with  them. 
It  is  natural  to  fuppofe  that  the  feelings  of  thele  breth- 
ren would  be  wounded  upon  fuch  an  occafion  ;  fome  on 
their  own  account,  and  iome  on  account  of  others. 
And  the  church  to  which  they  belong  migbt  confider 
tkeinfelves  iujured  i  and  it  is  likely  tbeeficd  vould  be 


142 


Ohfervatlons  on  the 


coniention,  rather  than  peace.  Difficulties  fimilar  t« 
tlie  above  are  fairly  fuppofeable. 

If  you  pleafe,  Sir,  we  will  now  fuppofe  a  different  cafe. 
It  lb  happens,  that  I'everal  of  your  brethren  remove  into 
the  neighbourl-.ood  of  a  Baptift  church,  and  from  their 
lituation  are  defirous  of  enjoying  privileges  with  them. 
The  Baptifts,  enlightened  by  your  fentiments,  are 
equally  defirous  of  indulging  them  ;  and  although 
thefe  brethren  have  not  received  baptifm  in  the  way 
which  the  church  unJerftand  the  inltitution,  yet  as  they 
appear  to  be  fuwere,  which  '  is  the  very  soul  and  es- 
sence of  conformity  to  Chrift,'  the  church  cordially 
grant  their  requeft.  For  a  fcafon  they  enjoy  privileges 
together,  and  no  particular  difficulty  arifes  ;  but  at 
length  one  of  thofe  communicants  becomes  dilTatisfied 
with  refpecl  to  his  infant  baptifm  ;  and  in  the  exercife 
of  godly  fmcerity  is  led  to  believe,  that  it  is  his  indifpea- 
fable  duty  to  be  immerfed.  But  while  waiting  a  con- 
venient opportunity  for  that  purpofe,  a  communion  fea- 
fon  intervenes  •,  it  now  becomes  a  ferious  qucftion, 
both  with  him  and  the  church,  whether  it  be  duty  for 
him  to  communicate  in  his  prefent  fituation  ?  As  the 
church  adopted  this  new  mode  of  commimion  in  con- 
formity to  your  fyilem,  they  think  proper  to  recur  to 
it,  in  order  to  decide  the  prefent  doubtful  cafe.  They 
firft  confult  the  terms  on  which  you  propofe  free  com- 
munion ;  thefe  they  find  to  be  «  real  piety  or  <■  godly  ft  n- 
cerity'  That  the  man  was  a  fubjecSl:  of  thefe  qualifica- 
tions when  they  firft  admitted  him,  they  have  no 
doubt  ;  and  they  are  equally  fatisfied  of  his  Jincerxtj 
and  puiy  with  his  prefent  views  •,  and  at  firft  are  in- 
clined to  think  it  may  be  his  duty  to  communicate. 
But  there  is  one  difficulty  ftill  which  feems  to  embarrafs 
their  proceeding  ;  that  is,  if  they  underrtand  you  right, 
(p.  9)  it  IS  not  a  qucftion  with  you,  '  Whether  baptifm 
in  fome  mode  be  an  ejfential  qualification.^  And  although 
the  perfon  once  ftncerely  believed  himfelf  to  be  baptized, 
Ue  now  as  fmcerely  believes  he  is  not  ;  and  *  as  a  man 
thiriketh  in  his  heart  Jo  is  he'  For  the  fcripture  being 
♦  filent  refpefting  his  infant  baptifm,'  the  only  thing 
which  gave  it   validity,   either  with  himfelf  or  the 


propofed  Plan  of  Communion,  (s'c,  143 


church,  was  his  fincerity  ;  but  t/jat  falling  in  this  par- 
ticular, this  mult  confequently  fail  with  it  ;  and  he  can 
no  longer  be  confidered  as  baptized,  than  while  he  fin- 
cerely  believes  himfelf  to  be  fo.  He  is  now,  in  his  own 
view,  and  in  the  view  of  the  church,  unbaptized.  And 
I  cannot  fee  but  that  he  muft  appear  in  the  fame  light 
to  you,  upon  your  own  fcale  of  reafoning.  But,  how- 
ever, he  is  unqueftionably  poflefTed  of  real  piety  and 
gccl/yjificeriiy,  which  are  your  diftinguiOiing  terms  of 
communion  j  and  yet,  as  he  is  in  his  own  opinion  un- 
baptizcd,  he  lacks  an  <  e(Jdtitial  qualifcaiion.'  It  follows, 
that  by  your  fyfiem  he  is  both  qualified,  and  unqualifi- 
ed, at  the  fame  time. 

Belides,  the  Baptift  church  would  not  appear  in  the 
■  oft  confiftent  light,  to  baptize  a  perfon  with  whom 
icy  had  probably  communed  feveral  years  ;  and 
yer  the  man  cannot  a£t  confiPjently  with  godly  fincerity 
v.-ithout  it.  Upon  the  whole,  I  am  inclined  to  think, 
when  you  review  your  plan  in  its  operation,  you  will 
conclude  fome  auiendments  are  neccflary. 

In  connexion  with  your  defign,  you  have  another  ob- 
fervation,  upon  which  I  lhall  make  one  or  two  remarks. 
You  fay,  « I  fliall  negleft  to  pay  any  particular  attention 
to  the  fubject  of  infant  bapiifm  not  becaufe  that  I 
think  our  fide  fails  cf  fcripture  evidence,  but  becaufe 
many  abler  hands  have  been  employed  on  the  fubjeft', 
and  becaufi  I  think  it  to  be  needlefs  witii  refpedt  to  the 
fubjeft  of  clofe  communion.*  This  oblervation  appears 
a  little  extraordinary,  and  that  for  tv/o  rar.fons.  1. 
That  you  fhould  fuggeft  that  the  fcnpture  aftbrds  am- 
ple proof  in  favour  of  your  fentimcnts  ;  and  yet  in 
another  part  of  your  Letter,  (p.  35)  if  I  do  not  much 
miftake,  you  make  this  lionelt  concefiion,  That  the 
fcripture  as  to  infant  baptifm  is  silent  !  Strange  indeed  ! 
Full  of  evidence^  and  yet  fiieut  !  entirely  iilent  !  We 
cheerfully  yield  you  tiie  unmolciled  enjoyment  of  all 
the  evidence  which  infant  baptifm  can  derive  from  the 
filence  of  fcripture  relpecling  it.*    2.  That  you  fliouid 

*  1  hst  the  fcripture  it  ftleni,  i$  ackaowledged  by  Mr.  Clark,  Tlie 
Pxdobaptlfts  (faich  lie)  do  not  place  the  evidence  of  irfart  baptifm,  in 
th«  hillory  of  fad,  or  iu  :'ny  espr-fs  mention  of  it  in  t'lc  New  Tcft* 


144 


Ohfervations  tn  the 


fuppofe  tliat  infant  baptifm  is  not  connefled  with  the 
fubjed  in  difpute.  I  fuppofe,  Sir,  that  it  is  particularly 
conneded  ;  for  it  is  entirely  upon  the  fuppofition  of  its 
validity^  that  you  claim  a  right  to  communicate  with  us. 
Therefore,  had  you  brought  forward  that  teftimony 
from  fcripture  which  you  inform  us  your  <  fide  does  not 
fail  of,'  and  had  proved  by  CKample  or  precept.^  (I  mean 
not  by  file7it  evidence,  however)  that  infant  baptifm  was 
of  divine  appointment,  this  would  have  ended  the 
whole  difpute.*  You  cannot  be  infenfible  that  this  ob- 
je£tion  has  always  been  made  on  our  part,  and  to  me  it 
appears  rational  and  important.  I  endeavoured  care- 
fully to  ftate  it  in  my  other  Piece,  and  as  yours  is  faid 
to  contain  an  anfiver  to  it,  I  did  not-  expeft  it  in  this 
way,  that  '  you  fhould  neglect:  to  fay  any  thing 
about  it.' 

It  may  be  proper  in  the  next  place  to  attend  to  tte 
manner  in  which  you  anfwer  a  cafe  propofed  in  my 
other  Piece.  The  cafe  was  plain,  and  I  humbly 
conceive  quite  to  the  point  in  hand.  The  fubftance 
of  the  quefi:ion  was  this  •,  Had  Enoch,  Noah,  or  Mel- 
chizcdeck,  been  contemporary  with  Mofes,  would  he 
have  permitted  them  to  comm.union  in  the  pafchal 
fupper  while  uncircunicifed  Or  had  Noah  been  pref- 
ent  when  the  tabernacle  was  erefted,  and  had  been 
difpofed  to  have  given  the  people  a  fermon,  upon  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  righteouf- 
nefs  of  faith,  of  which  that  facred  ftruflure  was  typ- 
ical, would  not  Mofes  and  the  people  have  cheerful- 
ly heard  him  ?  And  yet  the  pofitive  law  of  Jehovah 
would  have  forbidden  his  purtaking  at  the  pafchal 
fealt. 

ment.  No  man  ever  pretended  it"  "  That  if  tlitre  be  ro  dirtil  evi- 
dence for  ;nf.iiit  baptilm  fiojo  the  iiiftorical  rclatinn  of  fafts  in  the 
New  Itftarncnt  iureiy  no  argument  ag<iii:il  it  can  be  made  out  from 
the f.Uiu-c  of  the-  [a<  i  tG  wiiteri  iii  reference  thcicunLo."  Defence  of  1b- 
fan:  buptilni,  p.  71;,  85 

*•  lo  ad.uit  tiiat  tiie  fi'cnce  of  fcripture  rcfpeding  any  point  in  dif- 

'  pute  affurds  full  evidence  in  its  f.ivoiir,  appears  to  mc  as  irrational  a^co 
udmit  tbe  evidence  cf  the  viatch  fi  t  to  keep  the  body  of  Jtfus,  vifi^ 

'  declared  that  his  dilclpUs  fiok  him  away  wiiile  tuev  slui-  v! 


Plan  of  Communion,  is'c. 


145 


.  To  this  you  anfwer,  «  We  fliall  not  difpute  but  that 
Mofes  would  have  admitted  thofe  ambalTadcrs  to  preach ; 
being  convinced  of  their  divine  commiffion  Nor  would 
he  have  forbidden  their  partaking  of  the  pafchal  feaft, 
had  they  been  clrcumcifed,  whether  it  were  done  in 
infancy  or  adult  age,  before  or  after  believing,  with 
a  knife,  a  razor,  a  fcythe,  a  fickle,  or  even  a  (harp 
ftone.' 

Sir,  did  you  think  this  would  be  confidered  as  an 
anfwer  ?  It  certainly  will  not.  Inftead  of  looking  the 
argument  fairly  in  the  face,  you  have  endeavoured  quite 
to  evade  it. 

You  agree  that  Mofes  would  have  admitted  thofe  am- 
bafladors  to  preach.  The  queftion  then  was,  whether 
he  would  have  received  them  to  the  pafchal  feaft, 
while  uncircumcifed  ?  Inftead  of  a  dire£t  anfwer, 
YQu  reply,  <  Nor  would  he  have  forbidden  their  par- 
taking of  the  pafchal  feaft  had  they  tec'ft  circumci- 
fed.'  True,  Sir  ;  nor  will  your  viaory  coft  you  any 
thing  ;  for  this  point  was  never  difputed.  You  pro- 
ceed to  remark  feveral  circumftances  refpecling  circum- 
cifion  ;  but  take  particular  care  not  to  mention  any 
which  would  affect  the  validity  of  the  rite.  Nor  are 
the  cafes  parnlle!  between  the  circumftances  mentioned, 
and  that  of  intaut  baptiihi.  This  will  fufficiently  ap- 
pear by  what  foil  ows  I  as  1.  *  ^'^hether  it  were  done  m 
infancy  or  adult  age,'  no  matter  which  ;  for  i'lfants  of 
eight  Jays  old  were  cxpreisly  mentioned  in  the  inftitu- 
tion,  and  they  were  commanded  on  that  dav  to  circum- 
cife  them  ;  and  repeated  examples  from  fcripture  prove 
that  it  was  done.  Let  the  right  of  infants  to  bisptiiin 
be  as  fairly  made  out,  and  the  point  will  be  given  up. 
2.  Whether  «  before  or  after  believing  this  was  en- 
tirely immaterial.  For  the  command  was,  Ami  he  that 
is  eight  days  old  fljall  he  ciriunuifcd  anicng  you,  every  maw 
child  in  ycur  generations,  he  that  is  lorn  in  the  hiife  or 
bcit^ht  'with  money  of  any  Jl  ranger,  ivhick  is  not  of  thy  fed — 
m'ujfl  needs  be  circtimciftd.*  It  hence  follows,  that  believ- 
ing was  not  required  in  the  fubjefts  for  circumcifion, 
nor  yet  that  the  parents  ftiould  be  believers  \  for  th<. 


*  Gen.  XV  i.  ii,  13. 
O 


U6 


Olfervatlans  on  the 


child  o£  an  idolatrous  heathen,  bought  for  a  flave,  had 
as  fair  a  claim  to  that  inftitution,  as  any  of  the  believing 
fons  of  Abraham.  This  cannot  be  faid  of  the  gofpel 
inftitution  ;  for  when  one  faid,  See  here  is  water  )  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?  The  reply  was,  If 
thou  helievcjl  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  viayejl*  And  al- 
though fome  believing  parents  claim  the  privilege  of 
baptifm  for  their  children,  I  do  not  remember  to  have 
heard  that  any  ever  did  for  their  Jcrvants.  Nor  does 
the  benevolent  do<ll:rine  of  infant  baptifm  make  any  pro- 
vifion  for  the  ill-fated  infant,  whofe  parents  are  both 
unbelievers.  3.  Whether  circumcifion  were  performed 
'  -with  a  knife,  a  razor,  a  fcythe,  a  fickle,  or  even  a  fharp 
ftone,'  we  acknowledge  it  equally  valid,  providing  the 
rite  was  performed.  So  likewife  Ihould  we  look  upon 
baptifm  to  be  valid  if  performed  in  Jordan,  in  the 
Tiber ^  in  a  pond^  in  a  pocly  in  a  ciJJer/i,  in  a  font,  or  in  any 
other  place  Vvhere  water  could  conveniently  be  had  fuf- 
ficient  to  immerfe  in. 

.Cut  if  you  pleafe,  Sir,  we  will  vary  the  circumftances 
a  httle.  If  inftead  of  perf"orming  the  rite  upon  the 
part  appointed,  a  perfon  had  ojiened  a  vein  in  his  arm, 
.cut  otf  the  end  of  his  toe,  his  thumb,  or  the  tip  of  his 
right  ear  ;  had  either  of  thefe  been  performed  with  all 
the  folemnities  of  the  other  rite,  it  ci^nnot  be  fuppofed 
that  it  would  have  been  accepted  for  circumcifion. 
And  yet,  perhaps,  the  difiamilarity  is  not  greater  be- 
tween either  of  the  fuppofed. cafes  and  the  commanded 
rite,  than  between  fprinkling  and  immerfion. 

We  will  now  take  notice  of  what  you  obferve  (p.  31) 
You  fiy, '  It  has  been  difficult  for  us  to  fee  the  confjft- 
encv  of  your  coiiduit,  in  refufing  to  commune  at  the 
Lord's  table  with  our  denomination  ;  while  at  the  fjime 
time,  you  pra£lically  acknowledge  our  Minifters  to  be 
authorized  and  qualified  to  preach  the  gofpel.'  That 
.  we  arc  perfectly  free  from  incoafiftency  will  not  be  pre- 
tended ;  J^or  do  we  think  that  a  compliance  with  your 
mode  of  communion,  would  free  us  from  the  charge.  ^ 
Perhaps  with  our  prefent  different  views,  we  cannot,  act 
more  confiftently  tlv^i-  to  follow  the  advice  given  by 


*  Aasviii  36,3: 


Plan  of  Communion^  (jf c. 


U7 


the  npoftle  j    "  Whereto  we  luave  already  attaiKed,  let 
u-;  walk  by  the  fame  rule,  let  us  mind  the  fame  thing."* 
We  have  aUnined  to  an  agteem^nt  in  praying  to  the 
i  ame  God  and  Father  of  all  ;  and  alfo  in  preaching  the 
I'ofpel  of  his  Son  Jefus  Chrill:.    But  we  have  not  at- 
tained to  an  agreement  with  refpeit  to  the  fubjeib  and 
mode  of  baptifm  ;  nor  in  the  vifible  qualifications  of 
.i-nunicants  for  the  Lord's  table.    How  can  two  walk 
■.•ther  except   they  be  agreed  ?  But  muft  we  bo 
rgcd  with  inconfillency,  for  not  difagrceing  in  the 
igs  we  are  agreed  in,  or  merely  becaufe  we  ?.n: 
ccd  in  fome  tilings,  and  not  in  all  ?   If  fo,  we  mult 
ently  fubmit  to  the  charge,  until  the  happy  time 
:ies  when  we  ir..\n  Ice  eye  to  eye.  • 
Although  we  do  not  think  of  clearing  ourfelves  of 
mfiftcncy,  by  charging  your  conduct  witli  the  fame  ;j 
•  it  may  not  be  improper  here  to  inquire,  whether 
;r  conduct  towards  us  in  fome  inftances,  be  quite 
iiftent  with  your  profellions  of  frieudfiiip  in  eftab-. 
i.-c'^^^free  communion  with  us  ?   If  you  confidor  lis  ad 
a  branch  of  Chrift's  church,  with  whom  you  would  be 
wilting  to  enjoy  Chriftian  communion,  why  do  you  rcr* 
fufe  to  difmifs  and  recommend  your  members  to  us^ 
when  they  are  in  good  Icanding  in  your  churches,  and 
wifli  to  join  ours  ?   I  conclude,  Sir,  you  are  fenfible 
that  this  privilege  has  been  generally  denied,  and  this 
reafon  has  been  often  afligned  for  the  denial  ;  That  to 
difmifs  a  member  to  a  Baptift  church,  would  be  to  ac- 
knowledge it  a  church  of  Chrift.    But  would  you  be 
willing  to  communicate  with  any  who  do  not  belong  to 
his  church  ?   You  certainly  would  not. 

Permit  me,  Sir,  to  mention  one  thing  more.  Why 
are  your  pulpits  fo  frequently  denied  to  the  Minifters 
of  our  denomination  ?  Is  it  becaufe  they  are  hetercKlox 
in  doftrine,  or  vicious  in  their  conduft  ?  They  are  nof 
charged  with  either.  Is  it  becaufe  they  may  want 
literary  accomplifhments  ?  This  might  be  imagined, 
were  it  not  that  thofe  who  poflefs  them  are  often  denied 
as  well  as  others.  Is  it  becaufe  we  do  not  communicate 
with  you  at  the  table     If  you  complain  of  our  being 


•  Phil.  iiL  1 6. 


MS 


Obje£lions  anfwerei. 


uncharitable  in  this,  remember  you  are  not  to  render 
evil  for  evil  \  but  contrariwife.* 

Thefe  objeflions  are  not  to  be  taken  indifcriminately  ; 
BO,  many  of  our  Psedobaptift  brethren  meet  us  upon  the 
moft  friendly  terms  •,  reciprocal  love  and  efteem  mingle 
in  our  lociety  ;  and  although  we  pretend  mt  to  have 
domitiron  over  each  other's  fail h,  yet  we  become  helpers  of  ene 
einoiher's  joy.-\ 


SECTION  X. 

Several  ObjcBions  pariicitlarly  anfioercd.-^  The  Siibjclf 

coiicluded. 

Sir,  I  cannot  do  juftice  to  myfelf  and  the  de- 
r.omination  to  which  I  belong,  without  taking  notice  of 
feveral  charges  which  you  have  brought  againft  us.  In 
fhe  firfi:  place,  you  have  charged  me  with  *  quoting 
fcripture'  in  a  method  calculated  to  miflead  the  ignorant 
and  inattentive  of  '  arrogancy  and  uncharitablnefs 
and  of  «  havitig  done  great  injury  to  the  apoftle  Paul.' 
(Page  17,  35,  38.) 

The  firft  inftance  of  which  you  complain,  is  in  the 
following  words  j  "  Sincerity  is  not  the  term  of  com- 
munion but  being  conformed  to  the  apoftles'  doctrine, 
?.nd  continuing  ftedfaftly  therein.  A61s  ii.  4-2."  Upon 
which  you  thus  ohferve  ;  *  From  the  manner  of  your 
citing,  or  rather  alluding,  to  this  text,  it  would  be  nat- 
nral'  to  expedt  that  upon  examination  we  fliould  find 
rhe  infpirecl  writer  defcribing  the  terms  of  communion.' 
I  conclude,  Sir,  upon  examination  this  does  abundantly 

*  Perhaps  fome  who  have  thus  been  denied,  by  their '  fincere'  but 
differing  brethren,  have  been  indulged  with  the  fpacious  temple  of  their 
royal  Mafter,  and  with  much  the  fame  accommodations  which  he  had. 
Whihl '  The  Lord  of  lords  and  King  of  kings,  is  neither  afraid  nor 
Efhanied'  to  accompany  them  to  fome  friendly  jft^/</f,  or  to  a  humble 
fall,  reicmbling  the  birth-place  of  Immanuel  ;  and  thcra  blcffcs  their 
Ubouri>  to  the  comfort  and  falvation  of  his  people, 
f  2  Cor.  i.  24. 


ObjeBions  anfivered. 


149 


appear.  Nor  am  I  convinced,  that  the  palTage  is  not 
jiertincnt  to  the  purpofe  for  \vhi»h  it  was  cited  ;  and 
if  it  does  not  defcribe  the  terms  of  communion.  I  know 
not  of  any  one  which  does.  «  But  (you  fay)  inliead  of 
this,  we  find  him  fr.npiy  relating  the  conduct  of  fome 
young  converts,  who  had  been  already  admitted  to 
communion.'  But,  Sir,  do  you  not  miftalce  ?  H'.^  is 
l.ere  defcribing  the  very  manner  in  whicii  tbeie,  con- 
.  ts  were  admitted  ;  and  which  fully  fiiows  the  *  apof- 
^;ic  practice.' 

Bin  what  is  the  accoimt  given  of  their  proceedings 
You  anfwer,  <  Let  us  read  tue  41(1  and  42d  verfes  in 
connexion.'  Then  they  luho  gla  Jy  rtccroed  the  word  ivere 
baptized  ;  and  the  fame  day  there  ^ivere  added  unto  them 
abcut  three  thou/and  fouls.  And  they  ccntinued  Jlcdfalily  in 
the  apojilei  doHrine  and  feiloiijhip,  and  in  kn  aking  of  breads 
and  in  prayers.  And  were  they  not  baptized  until  they 
received  the  word  No,  they  were  not  ;  and  were 
they  baptized  and  r.o  others  .''  Tlie  fcripture  is  totally 
•  filent'  as  to  any  others.  Nor  did  they  join  the  body 
of  believers  or  church,  until  they  received  the  word, 
and  were  baptized.  You  fay,  '  'I'hey  had  already  been 
admitted  to  communion.'  I  would  beg  to  know,  where 
you  find  any  account  of  their  having  been  admitted  be- 
fore this  ? 

You  farther  obfei  ve,  *  That  any  perfon  of  good  dil- 
cernment  may  fee,  that  in  this  text  thej-e  is  no  appear- 
ance of  delign  to  afcertain  the  terms  of  communion..' 
Let  ti.e  defign  be  what  it  may,  here  is  evidcsitly  afcer- 
tained  the  apcftolic  prr.dice  \  and  the  exacl  manner, 
ftep  by  flep,  in  wluch  the^'  proceeded  to  communion. 

ihe  pafiage  of  fcripture  which  you  isitrouuce,  as  be- 
ing fo  very  appofite  to  your  mode  of  communion,  and 
on  which  you  lay  much  la  els,  is  this  ;  '  Bt  ye  foUowsrs  of 
■God  as  dear  children^  'i  he  '  diicerning  reader'  u'Ul  novv 
judge,  v.hether  in  this  pall>ge  tiiere  is  any  greater  <  ap- 
pearai^ce  of  delign,  to  afceitain  cbe  tCirns  of  commu- 
nion,' than  in  the  one  which  i  alluded  to.  But,  how- 
ever, <«  If  to  be  conformed  to  the  apoiliitis*  dodrine,  and 
continuing  fcedfaftly  in  it,"  be  a  dangerous  pradtice,  giid 
'  calculated  to  njifiead  the  igno/  anc        in?.t:eutiYc,' wc 

o  2 


Objeciiijfis  anfniuyeil. 


fhould  be  glad  to  fee  the  danger  pointed  out,  and  a  bet- 
ter fyftem  of  doctrine  propofed  for  imitation. 

In  my  other  Piece,  in  anfwering  feveral  pleas  in  fa- 
vour of  free  communion,  I  obferved  that  it  had  been 
urged,  *'  That  the  fcripture  account  of  baptifm,  was 
left  in  fo  much  darknefs  and  ambiguity,  both  as  to  the 
fubjefts  and  mode,  that  nothing  certain  could  be  deter- 
mined." In  remarking  upon  which  I  made  the  follow- 
ing obfervation  ;  ««  It  may  be  remembered  that  when 
the  talents  were  committed  to  the  fervants  to  occupy,- 
the  two  who  improved  made  no  complaints  ;  the  ether 
had  a  hard  malter,  an  auftere  man,  and  a  great  many 
difficulties  flood  in  the  way  of  duty."  After  making 
your  farcaftical  paraphrafe  upon  my  obfervation,  you 
bring  forward  your  charge  of  '  arrogancy  and  unchar- 
itablenefs  to  which  it  may  be  replied — The  obferva^ 
tion  was  defigned  entirely  for  thofe  who  make  th« 
above  plea  ;  and  no  one  will  feel  himlelf  injured  by  the 
application,  if  he  be  not  the  charadter  defcribed.  And 
however  '  arrogant  and  uncharitable'  it  may  appear, 
thus  to  blame  the  conduft  of  thofe  v.-iio  bring  forward 
the  plen,  fo  long  as  they  are  conlidere  J  only  as  fervams  ; 
it  cannot  be  thought  more  fo,  than  the  plea  itfelf,  againlt 
Chrift  our  royal  mafter. 

To  plead  the  want  of  fufficient  light  in  the  fcriptures, 
as  the  reafon  of  our  wrong  fentiments,  is  indeed  to  im- 
peach Chrift.  "  To  fuppofe  this,  (faith  Dr.  Hopkins) 
is  a  reproach  on  divine  revelation,  and  the  Author  of  it, 
and  an  implicit  denial  that  it  comes  from  God."* 

But  laftly,  you  accufe  me  of  having  '  done  great  in- 
jury to  the  apoftle  Paul.'  If  it  be  lb  I  fhall  be  ferry 
indeed.  Cut  what  have  I  done  to  the  apoflle  ?  Why 
you  fay,  '  You  have  quoted  his  words  without  ?.ny 
appearance  of  regard  to  the  connexion.'  And  what 
then  ?  Is  this  injuring  the  apoftle  ^  Are  we  never  to 
ufe  the  words  of  the  infpired  writers  in  any  other  fenfe 
than  what  they  did  Do  not  the  beft  writers  frequent- 
ly quote  fcripture  (by  way  of  accommodation,  or  for  the 
fake  of  the  phrafe)  without  attending  ftridtly  to  the 
connexion  ?  In  fhort,  have  you  not  frequently  done  it 


•  Vid.  Syftem,  Vol.  ii.  p.  3«3. 


CijiLiiohi  uti/wtred. 


151 


Tourfelf  ?  One  or  two  of  your  quotations  will  deter- 
mine the  matter.     '  As  a  man  thinheth  in  his  heart  fo  is 
he'    Did  you  attend  to  the  connexion  here,  and  ufe 
the  words  in  the  fame  fenfe  which  the  royal  preacher 
did  ?   It  is  evident  you  did  not.    Again,  when  you 
v.  ould  fix  the  charge  of  inconliftency  upon  us,  for  re- 
ttillng  to  comununicate  with   thofe  with  whom  you 
luppole  Chrift  communes,  you  can  introduce  the  apoftle 
Paul  as  exhorting  the  Baptifts,  *  to  be  followers  of  God 
as  dear  children.'    I  lhall  not  lay  that  you  have  '  great- 
'  injured  the  apoftle     but  I  hardly  think  that  in  the 
..iTa^e  above,  he  had  reference  to  our  communicating 
ith  you  at  the  Lord's  table. 

The  palT.ige  which  I  quoted  was  the  following  ; 
Now  we  command  you  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Je- 
:s  Chrift,  that  ye  withdraw  yourfelves  from  every 
-other  who  walketh  difordei'Iy,  and  not  after  the  tra- 
ition  which  he  received  of  us."*    In  applying  this  to 
TV  brethren,  I  obferved,  "It  may  he  your  duty  to  with- 
raw  from  them  whom  you  confider  as  not  conformed 
3  the  tradition  of  the  apoftles,  fo  far,  as  not  to  partake 
gether  at  the  Lord's  table."    No  candid  mind  can  be 
;  a  lofs,  as  to  the  exa^l  fenfe  in  which  I  ufed  the  apof- 
le's  words  ;  nor  can  they  think  that  I  ufed  the  word 
adiiion  abfolutelv   in  the  fame  fenfe  which  he  did. 
'  i,s  wortls  are  cjuite  in  the  imperative^  m.ine  in  the  mild 
;  i'fuficlive  mood. 
You  have  been  pleafod  to  ftyle  St.  Paul  an  '  eminent 
■nee  maker     and  have  coUeited  many  paflages  of  fcrip- 
iire  to  prove,  that  to  this  end  *  he  ivas  made  all  things  to 
...         (not  for  the  fake  of  communicating  with  them, 
*  that  he  might  by  all  means  SA\E  Jhne.'    But  fliall 
\vf,  from  the  condei'cending  light  in  which  you  have 
repiei'ented  the  apoftle,  conclude,  that  if  he  were  among 
the  Baptifts,  he  would  become  a  Baptift  ;  and  fully  ap- 
prove of  their  mode  of  baptilm,  and  of  their  denying  the 
right  of  infants,  while  at  the  fame  time  he  might  know, 
that  the  inftituiion  did  not  require  the  former,  and  that 
it  exprefsly  enjoined  the  latter  ?  Or  on  the  other  hand, 
if  be  were  among  the  Psedobaptifts,  fliall  we  fuppofe 


•  sTheff.  iii.  6 


152 


OhjcEi'tons  anfwei'Ld. 


him  one  with  them  ;  and  th:it  he  wcould  cordially  ap- 
prove of  their  mode  of  baptizing  infants,  when  at  the 
fame  time  he  might  know,  that  neither ftibJeBs  nor  mode 
were  according  to  the  inftitution  ?  Would  fober  reafon 
venerate  fuch  a  rharadter  as  this  ?  No.  It  would  look 
upon  him  as  an  unprincipled  tinie-ferver. 

To  fuppofe  that  St.  Paul  would  conform  to  every 
party  which  he  might  occafionally  be  among,  would  be 
to  make  him  refemble  t\\zt  prcttiiar  afiimal,  which  par- 
takes of  the  colour  of  every  fubftance  which  it  happens 
to  be  upon  !  I  confefs,  I  form  no  fuch  opinion  of  this 
great  apofHe's  catholicifm  ;  but  conclude,  were  he 
among  us,  he  would  fay  to  thofis  in  the  right,  «  Now 
I  pratfe  you,  hret!:ren,  that  ye  remember  me  in  all  things,  and 
keep  the  ordinancts,  as  I  delivered  them  to  you."  But  to 
thofe  in  the  v>'rong,  "  Nciu  in  this  that  I  declare  unto  youy 
I prn  'ife  y^tt  ?i:L"* 

But  we  pafs  on, 

S:-cchdly,  To  confider  the  charges  which  you  exhibit 
againft  our  fentiments.  In  your  viith.  part  you  proceed 
to  iliow,  wh?-t  appears  to  you  to  be  the  natural  tenden- 
cy of  our  fentiments  and  practice  ;  and  finally  conclude, 
that  they  •  tend  to  break  up  all  churches,  and  to  de- 
stroy all  vifible  communion  among  Chriftians.'f  If  this 
be  the  cafe,  no  wonder  you  are  alarmed.  But,  Sir,  you- 
miftHke.  Tlie  churches  of  our  denomination  in 
America,  contain  upwards  of  fixty  thjiifand  members^ 
which  hold  vifible  communion  together  :  nor  did  I  ever 
know,  that  any  attempt  had  been  made  on  our  part,  to 
deftroy  the  vifible  communion  of  Chriftians  in  general. 
And  cortair.ly,  were  our  fentiments  univerfaliy  to  op- 
crate,  they  would  unite  in  one  great  body  all  Chrillians 
to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

*  1  Cor.  3,  '  7. 
f  Although  1  have  not  written  documents  to  prove,  yet  I  have  cred* 
iblt  information,  tliat  a  Conference  or  Council  was  i'omc  time  Cace 
called  at  Well  Stockbridge,  to  advifi-,  whether  it  were  conCfient  for  the 
two  denominations  in  that  place  t )  1  ui!d  a  church,  and  walk  together. 
It  was  unanimoufly  apreeGd  in  the  negaiive.  Two  of  tlie  Pstdobaptiil 
Miniftcrs  were.  Rev.  Dr.  WtsT,  Rev.  Mr.  Camp,  iiuptills, Rev.  Mcflii. 
V/ottui.N.,  and  Blood. 


ObjeHions  aufwered. 


153 


But  you  object  again  and  fay,  *  Your  fentlnient  and 
pradtice  tend  to  lead  people  to  place  the  eJfciK-e  of  religion 
ill  the  external  obfervance  of  ceremonial  inftitutions,  to 
the  neglecl:  of  the  weightier  matters  of  the  law.' 

TJiis,  Sir,  is  not  true.  For  our  fentiments  carry  the 
fuUeft  demonllration  to  the  contrary.  It  is  a  fact  uni- 
verfally  known,  that  no  perfon  can  be  admitted  as  a 
member  in  a  Baptift  church,  let  his  exirrnals  be  what 
they  nay,  without  fufficient  evidence  that  he  has  expe- 
rienced a  change  of  heart,  and  has  become  a  real  Chrif- 
tian.  We  do  not  baptize  perfons  to  m:i'rce  them  Chrif- 
tians,  but  becaufe  we  look  upon  them  to  be  fuch  already. 
And  it  is  well  known,  that  a  perfon  cp.naot  be  accepted 
wiih  us,  on  account  of  lineal  defccnt  from  Abi-aham,  or 
any  other  believer  j  nor  by  virtue  of  a  pretended^f^/frfl/ 
holinefs  ;  nor  can  they  make  a  profeOion  by  proxy  or 
fponforj  i  but  by  their  own  voluntary  act  Y/ e  never 
baptize  perfons  out  of  our  ordinary  way,  who  are  in 
danger  of  death  ;  ncr  do  we  ever  give  the  communion 
to  any  who  are  unbaptized.  How  then  can  you  pofli- 
bly  fay,  wirh  any  appearance  of  modefty  cr  juftice,  that 
pur  •  fentiments  tend  to  lead  people  to  place  the  ejpnce 
of  religion  in  the  external  obferv.ince  of  ceremonial 
iailitutions  .'" 

You  follow  this  charge  with  a  number  of  ungenerous 
refleiflions  upon  the  Minifters  of  our  denomination. 
To  make  this  appear,  I  would  only  alk  ;  Were  I  to 
charge  your  iNiinifters  with  '  taking  up  much  of  their 
time  in  public  and  in  private,  difputing  about'  infant  bap- 
tifm  ;  and  Hiould  have  the  vanity  to  fay,  they  had  bet- 
ter « inculcate  upon  their  hearers  the  nature  and  i.mpor- 
tance  of  univerfal  benevolence,  the  duties  of  brotherly 
love,  juftice,  mercy,  and  compaffion  ;  to  live  ufcful  lives, 
ferviiig  their  generation  by  the  will  of  God  (as  it  theie 
were  almoll,  if  not  entirely  negledled  ;  and  ihould  af- 
fure  them,  that  if  they  would  take  my  advice)  '  they 
would  do  much  more  good  in  the  world,  appear  much 
iefs  like  the  Scribes  and  Pharifees,  which  xhey  now  re- 
fefltible,  '  and  much  more  like  Christ  jjnd  his  Apos- 
tles,'which  ne  fo  exaftly  imitate;  wouli  you -not 
tliink  me  juflly  chargeable  with  *  aryogai:cy  and  uad.ar- 


Objeclions  atifwsred^^ 


itahhncfs  /"  I  leave  the  matter  to  your  own  feelings.  A 
word  to  the  wile  is  fufficient. 

Another  thing  you  charge  us  with,  is,  that  wc  lay  an 
'  undue  Jlrefs^  upon  the  ordinance  of  bnptifm,  or  at  leaft 
upon  our  particular  mode.  This  comes  rather  with  an 
ill  grace,  from  one  of  a  denomination,  which  evidently 
make  as  much,  if  not  more  of  the  ordinance  than 
we  do. 

But  v^'e  will  not  reft  the  matter  here,  without  %  fair 
examination.  Do  we  infift  on  baptifm  in  cry  mode,  ais 
ejfiutial  to  falvation  ?  You  allow  that  we  do  not.  Do 
we  place  it  in  the  room  of  ;Yfl'pf;«/«_§' WW,  and  think  that 
by  our  immerlion  we  wa(h  away  our  fins  ?  No,  you 
acquit  us  from  this  alfo.  Do  we  look  upon  it  as  an  in- 
ftitution  of  Chrift,  which  we  are  facredly  bound  to  ob- 
lerve  ?  We  do  j  and  fo  do  you.  Do  we  look  upon  it 
us  an  enjoined  pre-requilite  to  communion  ?  We  do  j 
and  fo  do  Psedobaptifts  in  general.  But  how  does  it 
appear  then  that  we  lay  an  '  undue  ftrefs'  upon  it 
Why  you  fay,  <  I  veril;  yiv7r  .''—(quite  a  conclufive  way 
of  arguing  ;  but  go  on)  '  I  verily  fear,  that  with  maiiy, 
a  change  in  fcvA'uncnt  in  favour  of  your  opinion,  lias 
been  allowed  great'weight  as  an  evidence  of  a  real  change 
of  hvart.'  I  with,  Sir,  you  had  proved  the  matter,  in- 
ftead  of  fuggefting  your  fears.  But  you  add,  «  It  has 
been  freciiiently  mentioned  by  thofe  of  your  ■denomina- 
tion, as  an  evidence  of  great  lelf-denial,  f(>r  a  perfon  to 
be  a  Baptift,  or  to  be  plunged.  And  when  I  hear  fuch 
things,  it  always  excites  fears  in  my  mind.' — Sir,  the 
mere  thoughts  of  a  pcrfon's  being  plungcdy  feems  to 
have  ftruck  you  with  a  hydropb.obia,  and  quite  agitated 
your  mind  ! — But  let  us  try  calmly  to  examine  the 
raatter. 

It  will  probably  be  granted,  that  the  time  has  beeni 
when  it  required  fome  degree  of filf-d'-nial  to  be  a  Bap- 
tift ;  when  the  pen  of  the  hiftorian,  and  the  tongue  of 
the  orator,  were  inviuioufly  employed,  in  reprefenting 
us  in  the  mofl:  ridiculous  and  whimfical  light  ;  while 
the  pulpit  thundered,  and  tTie  prefs  groaned  with  heavy 
charges  againft  the  daring  innovators.  At  the  fame 
time,  the  civil  law  added  its  mild  difcipline  of  ejcciiony 


OhjeSnom  nnfivertd. 


155 


hanljJ .iui::,  ■and  prefer ion .  But  thanks  be  to  Heaven, 
a  milder  morn  has  dawned  upon  us  •■,  the  crofs  is 
lightened,  and  we  have  few  complaints  of  this  kind  to 
make. 

It  may  be  proper  now  to  corifider,  whaty?/-^  has 
been,  and  laid  upon  this  ordinance,  by  P?edobaptifts. 
It  was  faid  by  our  Saviour,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
tuattr,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
This  paflfage  was  very  early  expounded  literally  of  wa- 
ter baptifm,  and  the  confequence  admitted,  that  no  per- 
fon  could  be  faved  without  it.  Hence  all  infants  dying 
unbaptized,  inevitably  perifhed. 

In  the  year  416,  a  council  was  held  at  Mela  in  Nu- 
midia,  in  order  to  eftablifh  a  law  to  compel  Chriflians 
lo  baptize  their  infants.  They  iffued  twenty-feven 
D€W  commandments,  among  which  are  the  following. 
"  It  is  the  pleafure  of  all  the  bifliops  prefent  in  this 
holy  fynod  to  order,  1.  That  whofoever  faith  Adam 
was  created  mortal,  and  would  have  died,  if  he  had  not 
finned  ;  be  accurfed.  2.  Alfo  it  is  the  pleafure  of  the 
bifhops  to  order,  that  whofoever  denieth  that  infants 
newly  born  of  their  mothers  are  to  be  baptized,  or  faith 
that  baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  for  the  remiffion  of 
their  own  fins,  but  not  on  account  of  original  fin  derived 
from  Adam,  and  to  be  expinied  by  the  laver  of  regene- 
ration j  be  accurfed."* 

In  the  reign  of  the  emperor  Charlemagne,  a  law  was 
eftablifhed,  making  it  death  for  a  man  to  refufe  to  be 
baptized  ;  and  a  heavy  fine  was  levied  on  the  parent, 
who  did  not  have  his  child  baptized  within  the  year. 
But  as  at  firft;  they  only  baptized  at  two  times  in  the 
year,  it  was  found  that  many  died  between  }  to  remedy 
which,  priefls  were  empowered  to  baptize  at  any  time, 
and  in  any  place,  in  cafe  of  fickncfs.  When  it  was  re- 
marked that  a  prieft  was  not  always  r.t  hand,  new  canons 

••  Vij.^  Cpnci[.  ?<^iievitin,.  in  Robirifon.  "  An  'lortft  indignation, 
(Ijyi  ji  hSftoriai]')  fifes  at  the  lo-jr.il  of  fuch  tyranny;  und  if  a  n-.an 
■v?eTr  (]riv;r  to  the  n*cc(T:ty  of  cK.icilni^  6ix  lirint  out  of  tw  o  canditlart  j, 
it  would  rot  bL-  .-.udin,  it  would  he  Saint  Babani,  the  fon  <  f  Bofor,  wl.o 
i;idef4  ioYj:4.  thi^  \?.2g«t  of , UTTigiitcoufncrs,  as  n^ny  other  faints  huvc 
d.iDi:;  but  w  ho  with  aU  his  rryduefs  had  refpedl  enout'li  I'oi  tho  Deity 
to  fay,  Ht-U-  fi^il  I  cur/i  'u  b  m  G  J  hatbn^t  c^rfcd  "- 


156  Obje^ions  anfivered. 

empowered  him  to  depute  others  to  perform  the  cere- 
mony, and  midwives  were  licenfed.  It  happened  fome- 
times,  while  the  midwife  was  baptizing  a  child  not  like- 
ly to  live  many  minutes,  the  mother  was  neglefted  and 
died.  It  was  finally  decreed,  that  any  body,  licenfed  or 
unHcenfed,  a  Jew,  or  degraded  prieft,  a  fcuUion  or  felon, 
might  baptize.* 

Let  us  now  attend  to  an  inftance  of  a  later  date. 
About  the  year  1690,  there  were  two  dilTenting  Minif- 
ters  in  W?.pplng.  Hercules  Collins,  who  taught  a  Bap- 
tift  congregation  •■,  and-  Francis  Mence,  who  taught  a 
congregation  of  Independents.  Collins  publifhed  a 
book  of  reafons  for  believers'  baptifni,  in  which  he  ob- 
ferved,  among  other  things,  that  there  was  no  "  rcafon 
to  baptize  an  infant  under  pretence  of  faving  it  ;  for 
that  original  lin  was  not  wafhed  off  by  baptifnial  water, 
but  by  the  blood  of  Chrifi:,  and  the  imputation  of  his 
righteoufr.eis."  Mence  thought  it  his  duty  to  guard 
his  congregation  from  this  error  ;  and  he  both  preached 
and  printed,  th.r.t  this  was  "  infant-damn'ing  dcFlrine^^ 
««  The  princii^le  (he  faid)  evidently  excluded  dear  in- 
fants from  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  an  auda- 
cious cruelty  ;  fending  them  by  fwarms  into  hell !" 
Collins  attempted  to  explain  himfelf,  anrd  vindicate  his 
dodtrine — but  all  in  vain.  The  oppolition  rofe  to  fuch 
a  height,  that  his  life  was  endangered  ;  the  ftreets  re- 
founding  with  the  cries  of  tender  moihers,  who  fliriek- 
ed  as  thev  fold  hih,  "  Tlicre  go,'s  C-iLitis,  who  holds  the 
damnation  of  infants. "f  And  all  this  becaufe  he  de- 
nied the  neceflity  of  baptifin  to  their  falvation.  But 
the  fentiments  of  :he  prefent  day,  next  call  for  our  at- 
tention. 

The  fonn  of  fervice  now  in  ufe  among  our  brethren 
of  the  Epifcopal  church,  leads  us  to  fuppofe,  that  they 
afcribe  quite  as  much  eiTtcacy  to  the  ordinance  as  we 
do.  For  they,  ima;ediately  after  baptizing,  make  the 
foUowiiig  addrefs  :  "  Seeing,  dearly  beloved  brethre«, 
that'this  child  is  i-.-^cuiratt,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of 
Chrift's  church,  let'us  give  thanks  to  Almighty  God  for 

»  Robinfoii's  Hill  p  417-    Ami  Primitive  Chrillianity,  p  191 
f  Robiiifon's  Hiftoiy,  p.  476. 


Gbje^i'nm  mifwtred. 


1-57 


thelc  benefit?. — ^^Ve  yield  thfe  heart t  tltanks,  molt 
nicrciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleafeJ  thee  to  Vig-nerate 
tlii>  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive    him  for 
thine  own  child  by  adopfisn."    And  when  the  children  are 
rhoiight  capable  of  catechetical  initruction,  the  catechift. 
.i;s  interrog;ates  ;  "  Who  gave  thee  this  name  ?  My 
i  >nfors  in  my  baptifm,  whf.kkin  I  was  made  a  mem- 
.  »   of  Ciirill,  a  child  of  God,  ?.nJ  aa  inheritor  of  the 
I;ingdo.ii  of  heaven."*    Dr.  Hopkins,  when  fpeakuig 
ur  the  Wfftminfter  Catechifm,  takes  notTce  of  thi*  an- 
I'wer  5  "Baptifm  is  a  facrament,  wherein  the  wail  ing 
v.  ith  water,  in  the  name,  &c.  cLthftgn'-f^  and feal  our  in- 
'fting  into  Chri/i. — ^This  catechllm  is  received  by  the 
lurch  of  Scotland,  and  by  all,  or  moil  of  the  Prelby- 
rian  and  Congregational  churches  in  England,  Ireland, 
L.iJ  America  ;  and  taught  to  their  children."    He  then 
nclds,  "  If  baptif.n  lignifics  and  feals  wlut  it  is  here  faid 
to  do  ;  then  infants,  when  they  are  baptized,  are  vifibly, 
or  in  the  view  of  the  churdj,  ingrafteil  into  Chrijl,  and 
iHide   partakers  of  the  blelllngS  of  the  covenant  of 
grace. "f 

Now,  Sir,  let  us  jnft  coUefl  thefe  fcattered  rays  of 
e  vidence  to  a  focus. — To  conclude  that  all  who  die  uu- 
b aptized  eternally  "  perith  to  '«  levy  heavy  fines"  to 
oblige  parents  to  baptize  their  children  ;  to  «<  licenfe 
even  mid-wives  to  baptize,  rather  than  it  ihouid  not  be 
done  ;  to  *'  curfe"  thofe  who  deny  the  necelfity  of  it  to 
tiie  falvatiort  of  infants  ;  to  call  the  denial  of  it  "  injant- 
damning  d'jElrine  "  to  thank  God  that  the  infant  by 
b  iptifm  is  "  rf^£«fifl/f(y  to  teach  children  to  believe, 
that  in  their  baptifm  they  were  "  made  memhers  cf  Chrifi^ 
and  ci.'ildren  of  G'jd"  and  that  baptifm  doth  fignify,  and 
"  Jtcil  their  ingr.ifting  into  Chrijl,"^  and  that  thev  are 
thereby  made  partakers  of  the  bleflings  of  the  covenant 
of  grace. 

If,  after  attending  to  the  evidence  here  exhibit- 
ed, the  charge  againft  us  of  laying  an  '«  undue Jlrefs" 
upoa  baptifm  iho'oi  I  be  continued  ;  the  author  of  the 
'  Friendly  Letter'  is  modei'tly  requeued  to  prod  ice  proof 

♦  ViA  The  ofBce  of  public  biptifin  of  infants,  afld  ihscafcebiiu, 
\  Syftem,  Vt!.  ii.  p.  394. 

R 


158 


ObjeSHons  anfwered. 


from  the  writings  of  the  Baptifts  to  (how,  that  they  al- 
cribe  any  greater  elEcacy  to  it  than  their  Pjedobaptift 
brethren  do.* 

The  laft  thing  which  I  fliall  remark  upon,  is  a  <  query' 
which  you  fuggeft  in  the  following  words  :  <  May  it 
not  be  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  fame  preachers  of 
your  denomination  have  treated  the  fubjedt  of  baptifm, 
that  fo  many  profelTors  of  your  fe£l:  have  turned  Deifts^ 
Shakers,  Uinverfalijis,  &c.  ?  '  Upon  this  I  would  briefly 
obferve  j  It  is  thought  you  would  have  afted  more  con- 
fiftently  with  your  title  page,  and  other  profeflions  of 
candour,  that  if  you  had  known  any  inftances  in  which 
the  JuhjeEi  had  been  fo  treated,  to  have  pointed  them  out 
to  the  imprudent  teacher,  rather  than  to  have  caft 
t\\Qjlur  indifcriminately  upon  the  whole  denomination. 
But,  Sir,  we  cannot  admit  the  fuppofed  fadl  to  be  true. 
For  although  it  may  be  difficult  to  determine  the  exaft 
numb  r  of  Dei/ls,  Shakers,  and  Univerfali/}s,  and  what 
their  fentiments  have  heretofore  been  ;  yet  we  think 
ourfelves  under  as  good  advantages  to  know  the  rtate 
of  our  churches^  ?is  any  others  can  be  :  for  we  have  an 
annual  correfpondence  with  them  from  the  diftri(Si:  of 
Maine  to  the  ftate  of  Georgia  ;  and  aifo  with  our  breth- 
ren on  the  other  fide  the  Atlantic.  Hence  we  are  con- 
fident, that  if  they  principally  originate  from  us,  their 
number  muft  be  fmali. 

But  (hould  it  even  be  allowed,  that  a  greater  number 
of  our  denomination  had  gone  over  to  the  a'>ove  fenti- 
ments than  from  any  other,  will  it  hence  follow,  that 

•  It  is  a  queftion  with  fome  thinking  perfons,  whether  to  teach 
children  to  bcUeve,  that  by  l)iptifrn  they  are  "  regeii-rated"  and  "  In- 
grafted into  Chrifl,  and  made  part»kers  of  the  blefliu^s  of  the  covenant 
of  it  not  laying  an  .  und  le  flrefs  upon  the  .  r.ii.iance  ? — I  will 

add  tlie  fentinicnt  of  a  late  writ.T  "  A  virtaous  l^liion,"  I'aich  he, 
"of  the  Chrirtiaii  religion  is  fiunded  in  faich  in  ChriR,  and  from  this 
firft  cU  nient  all  after  aAions  naturally  flow  :  but  where,  as  in  proftlfing 
infants,  the  primordial  element  is  not  and  cannot  be,  religion  rifrs  on  a 
poftnlinum,  or  afTumcd  proof.  The  lives  of  fuch  nominal  Chrittians 
give  to  )  much  evidence,  thit  they  arc  Chriftians  only  l>y  prcpoffririons, 
and  hence  come  innumerable  errors,  p  iflio and  vices  Having  no 
reafons  cf  their  own  for  eitiier  faith  or  virtue,  they  know  nxliin^  of 
*he  religion  which  they  profef),  and  avoid  none  of  th;  crimes  it  w:- 
,iiteo«Ud  to  defiroy." 


ObjeHiens  atifwered. 


15S 


:[  was  beciule  they  had  once  been  'plunged  all  under 
'rater?'  Do  you.  ferioully  think  that  one  in  thirty 
would  aclcnowledge,  that  any  circunalbmces  conneded 
with  their  bein;^  iinmerfed,  led  them  to  embr.ice  thofe 
I'eiitimcnts  ?  It  is  doubted  whether  this  would  appaar 
upon  examination. 

You  inform  us  that  you  *ruggen:  this  query  without 
any  defign  to  reproach.'  Sir,  your  drft^in  falls  not 
within  our  jurifdiclion  to  judge;  but  the  query  itfe!f,  we 
are  obliged  to  view  as  a  groundlefs,  illiberal  reflection. 

If  the  caufe  you  are  engaged  in  cannot  be  fupported 
by  f'yber  faffs,  founded  on  rational  cjidence,  without 
making  ufe  of  fuch  feeble  auxiliaries  as  your  own  ^  fears, 
fuggifiions,  and  queries^  you  will  not  think  it  .ftrange  if 
we  ihouid  not  become  convert?  to  ycur  fentiments. 
But  you  continue  your  fuggcition  and  afk,  '  Is  it  not 
fuppofeable,  that  from  the  manner  in  which  fame  have 
treated  the  fubjeft  of  baptifm,  theie  apoliates  were  firft 
led  to  fuppofe  it  a  great  attainment  in  religion,  to  be 
pUinged  all  under  water  }  This  fuppolition  places  the 
whole  of  thefe  apoflates  (as  you  call  them)  to  our  ac- 
count :  and  that  they  were  led  on  to  this  apoftafy 
merely  by  wrong  iiiftructions  refpecling  baptifm.  But, 
do  you  know  this  certainly  to  be  the  cafe  with  any  one 
individual  }  or  wit!i  any  conllderable  number  of  them  ? 
If  not,  your  fuppolicion  mud  appear  in  an  unfriendly 
light,  and  '  calculated  to  miflead  the  ignorant  and  in- 
attentive.' 

You  conclude  your  alarming  defcription,  by  prefenl- 
ing  them  to  the  eye  of  imagination,  as  «  ncnu  ftnking'm 
the  quickfands  which  border  on  final  pe.  dition  !  Fan- 
!->  ai  fatal  box  could  fcarce  contam  more  evils  than  you 
trib  ite  to  baptifn  by  immeraon  !   Enlightened  reafon^ 
.  wover,  makes  a  paufe, — and  alks,  Can  it  be  f  ?  Hoary 
.  ^  rience  inltantly  comes  forward,  and  aflerts  that  the 
ii  known  to  be  otherwife. 
O  tiiou  condelcending  Redeemer,  is  an  humble  imi- 
tation of  thy  lunoc^'nt  example  thus  charged  with  load- 
ing the_/i^/«;  way  to  infiddiity,  and  '  final  perdnio  i  r'  Haft 
thou  not  com  nandaJ  us  to  follow  thee  ?  and  faid,  <'  If 
ye  I'jve  ma,  keep  iriy  coaima^idments  r" 


1G(I 


Cohcliifion^ 


Sir,  I  have  now  finilho;!  my  reimrlcj  apoa  y<xur 
Erie.i.lly  Ldiei',  aivl  fiiall  only  bsg  leave  to  ad.l  my  fin- 
cero  wilh-os  for  your  profperitr  in  the  cajfe  f  truth  ; 
and  that  you  mriy  be  honoured  as  an  inftrument  ia 
bringing  ^luny  Ions  to  glory.  I  now  cheerfully  fub- 
mit  the  foregoing  obfervations  to  the  judgment  of  a 
candid  public.  At  the  fame  time  humbly  imploring 
the  Father  of  mercies  fo  to  o*eirule  the  prefent  coa- 
troverfy,  that  trutii  may  be  fupported,  error  detefted, 
and  the  ordi.'i.i/ices  rettored  to  their  primitive  purity  : 
that  we  may  be  agreed,  not  only  fo  as  to  hold  occalionaL 
communion  together,  but  according  to  the  apoftle's  de- 
fire,  that  wc  may  he  perfefflj  jniied  tj^dhcr  in  the  Uime 
mind,  and  in  the  fame  judgiitcnt,  •with  refpeft  to  the 
MODE  and  ORDER-  of  gofpel  inflitutions  ;  and  that  ive 
ma\;  all  /peak  th:  fiWte  thing..  Then  indeed,  what  the 
prophet  faw  in  viiron  lhall  in  a  gofpel  fcnfe  be  accom- 
pli I  hetl  The  tnvy  of  Ephraim  /hiill  depart,  and  the  adver- 
furies  of  Judah  fh.ill  he  cut  off  t  Ephraim  Jball  not  env^ 
'Judah,  and  Judah  /hall  not  vi.\  Ephraim*  With  joy  we 
anticipate  the  happy  day,  when  in  a  peculiar  fenfe,  The 
Lord  fhall  be  King  ever  all  the  earth  :  in  that  day  there 
Jhall  be  one  LoRD,  and  his  name  one  Jf  One  faith  .'  One 
baptifm  !%  His  church,  one  b^dy  ;  and  the  watchmen^ 
with  regard  to  gofpel  inflitutions,_/&ij//  fee  eye  to  eye  ;  and 
all  difputing  ceafe  forever. 

While  waiting  the  arrival  of  that  happy  period,  Tt- 
fiiail  be  my  conftant  prayer, 

"  If  I  am  right,  thy  grace  impart, 

Mc  in  the  right  to  ftay  ; 
If  I  am  lui  onj^,  O  teach  my  heart 

I'o  find  t\\i.X.  l/cttct  itiuy." 

*lfaL  xi.  ly.  I  Zech.  xiv  9.  {  Eph.  iv.  ^. 


In  page  67,  ftcotxJ  paragraph,  inftcad  of  the  three  firft  lines,  read  as- 
fbllows  : — Tf  indeed  it  be  t-vU'tnt  frtm  fcriftute,  "  'Ti.it  note  but  fucb,  tvlo 
xtc  tiui  vi/il  'y,  tind  in  lie  cLi^ritulle  JtnUment  of  the  (buret,  Mievttf,"  &t» 


THE 

BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 

AND  THE 

Particular  Communion 

OF 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES, 

EXPLAINED  AND  VINDICATED. 
IN  THREE  PARTS. 
THE  FIRST — Published  originally  in.  1789  ; 

THE  second—In  1794; 

THE  THIRD — Ks  ApffNoix,  containing  Additional 
Observations  and  Arguments,  with  Strictures  on 
f  VERAL  late  Publications. 


BY  THOMAS  BALDWIN. 
PART  III. 


Boflon  : 

Primed  and  fold  by  Manning  ^  Loring,  No.  2,  Cornhill. 
1806. 

S 


DismcT  OF  AlMSAcausBtTi',  to  wit: 


BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  tenth  day  of  Scptemher,  in 
the  thirty-firft  )  car  of  die  independence  of  ibe  Uniied  States  of 
America,  Mann  i  no  &  Lo  k  i  ng,  of  the  faid  diftrift,  have  depof- 
ited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  right  whereof  ihey  claim  ai 
Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit: — "The  Baptif:n  of  Be- 
lievers only,  and  the  Particuhr  Communion  of  the  Raptill  Churches, 
explained  and  vindicated.  In  Three  Parts.  The  firll^publiflied  ori- 
gmally  in  178Q;  the  fecond — in  1704;  the  third^an  Av)pcndix,  con- 
tainiitf;  Additional  Obfervations  and  Arguments,  with  Striftures  on 
feveral  late  Publications.    By  Thomas  Baldwin," 

In  conformity  to  the  Aft  of  the  Congrefs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, "  An  A£\  for  the  encouragement  of  learninc.  by  fccuring  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  aiid  books,  to  the  Authors  ;iiicl  Proprietors  of 
fuch  ccjMcs,  during  the  times  therein  tr.cntioied  ;"  and  alfo  to  an  Mi, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplementary  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  'An  Aft  for 
the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  (touring  the  copies  of  :naps,  charts, 
iand  books,  to  the  Authors  ana  Prcprieiors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the 
limes  therein  mentioned  ;'  and  eA';niiirg  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
arts  of  dcfigning,  engraving,  and  1  jching  hiftorical  and  other  prints." 
WILLIAM  S.  ^HA  VV,  Cltrk  cf  the  Dijlrid  of  MajTachuJitt'. 


APPENDIX. 


SECTION  1. 

It  is  with  a  mixture  of  regret  and  pleafure,  that 
Ae  Author  of  the  enfuing  work  again  refumes  liis  pen 
m  this  unpleafant  controverfy.  To  be  obliged  to  oppofe 
the  fentiments  and  practice  of  a  body  of  Chriftians,  fa 
fefpeftable  for  their  number,  learning,  and  piety,  and 
fcr  many  of  whom  he  entertains  cordial  fentiments  of 
ftiendlhip  and  Chriftian  affection,  is  matter  of  no  fmali 
regret.  But  he  feels  a  degree  of  pleafure  in  believing, 
that  he  is  not  influenced  by  an  improper  partiality  for 
a  particular  {eO:,  but  with  a  laudable  zeal  for  the  honour 
of  Chrift,  as  Lawgiver  and  King  in  Zion. 

The  fubjeft  of  particular  conniuniofi,  has  at  length  be- 
come the  moft  important  article  of  difpure,  between 
the  Baptifts  and  Psdobaptifts.  The  latter  urge  their 
objeftions  with  much  addrefs,  and  feem  determined  if 
we  will  not  give  up  this  part  of  our  practice,  lo  have  no 
religious  connexion  with  us  whatever. 

We  have  attempted,  in  a  very  plain,  undifguifed  man- 
ner, to  affign  the  true  reafons  of  our  conduct.  Thefe 
have  beer,  either  overlooked,  or  deemed  unfatisfa^bory. 
They  on  the  other  hand  have  laboured  to  convince  us, 
that  the  whole  of  our  prafiice  wherein  we  differ  from 
them,  is  unfcriptural,  and  oppofed  to  the  true  fpirit  of 
the  gofpel.  We  have,  witii  all  the  candour  we  could 
command,  endeavoured  critically  to  examine  and  weigh 
tl^eir  arguments,  but  have  not  been  able  to  fee  their 
concluiivenefs.    Of  courCe  we  remain  unconvinced. 


164 


APPENDIX. 


It  is  a  fatSt  well  known,  that  the  Baptift  chunht-o 
from  time  immemorial,  have  in  general  held  and  prac- 
tifed,  what  is  called  clofe  or  particular  commutiioh  I'hat 
is,  they  have  refufed  to  communicate  at  the  Lord's 
table  with  thofe  whom  they  deemed  unbaptized.  When 
they  were  few  in  number,  and  univerfally  defpifed,  this 
was  little  complained  of.  It  was  fometimes  juft  men- 
tioned in  the  clofe  of  a  long  catalogue  of  errors  in  this 
way,  "  And  befide  all  this,  they  refufe  to  commune 
with  us." 

"We  wifli  not  to  attribute  the  unufual  and  increafing 
oppofition  that  is  made  to  our  fentiments in  this  particular, 
to  unworthy  motives  ;  but  we  are  at  a  lofs  in  fome  in- 
ftances  how  to  account  for  it,  on  the  principles  of  Chrif- 
tian  fincerity.  Can  we  fuppofe,  that  thofe  who  unceaf- 
ingly  fcandalize  our  praiftice,  and  endeavour  to  repre- 
fent  our  fentiments  in  the  moA  unfavourable  light,  are 
fincerely  defirous  of  communicating  with  us  at  the 
Ivord's  table  }  We  certainly  cannot,  unltfs  we  fuppofe 
them  as  inconfiflent  as  they  reprefent  us.  For  whrt 
purpofe  then,  it  may  be  afked,  is  this  kue  and  ay  fet  up 
about  clofe  communion  ?  It  is  believed  by  niany,  that 
the  true  anfwer  would  be,  becaufe  it  is  known  to  be  the 
moft  popular  objection  which  can  be  urged  againft  our 
fentiments.  Immerilon  has  confeffedly  fo  many  advan- 
tages over  fprinkling,  and  the  baptifm  of  a  believing 
adult  to  that  of  an  unconfcious  infant  ;  that  little  head 
could  be  made  againll:  a  practice  which  has  fo  much  the 
appearance  of  being  apoftolic,  were  it  not  for  its  con- 
nexion with  the  "  antichriftian"  fcheine  of  clofe  com- 
munion. 

Our  Paidcbaptift  brethren  know  as  well  as  we,  that, 
cur  particular  communion  is  a  natural  coiifcquence  of 
our  i'tntimetits  refpefling  baptifm  It  is  feen  at  once, 
that  the  former  is  direftly  conne^led  with  the  latttr  ; 
yea,  that  it  arifes  out  of  it.  But  inAead  of  approving 
of  it  upon  this  ground,  they  infer,  that  our  vitwi  of 
baptifm  muft  be  wrong,  or  they  would  not  produce  fiich 
uppleafant  confequences.  We  are  fatisfied  that  there 
is  fault  fomewhere.  Either  they  are  to  blame  for  it- 
Jtclitig  the  coutijel  of  God  la  tut  being  laptiztd  agreeably  to 


APPENDIX. 


tne  inftitution  ;  or  we  are,  for  rot  acknowledging  them 
to  be  baptized  when  we  verily  believe  they  are  not. 

We  think,  however,  we  cannot  be  confidently  blamed, 
lor  refufing  to  comjiiunicate  at  the  Lord's  table  witli 
luch  as  wc  deem  unbapti2ed,  efpocially  by  fuch  as  them- 
felves  hold  baptifm  to  be  a  pre-requifite  for  that  ordi- 
nance. This  we  confider  to  be  precifeiy  the  ground 
on  which  otir  Psadobaptirt  brethren  ftand.  We  know 
of  none  who  are  eftcemed  found  in  dodtrine,  and  or- 
derly in  practice,  who  do  not  agree  with  us,  in  refufing' 
to  communnicate  with  any  perfons  however  pious  and 
amiable,  until  tht;y  are  baptized. 

There  are  fome  indeed,  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  in 
r]\€  eafiert  way  poflible,  who  tell  us,  (but  who  never  re- 
duce their  fentiments  to  practice)  ihey  couid  comntune 
witb  thofe  who  had  never  been  baptized  in  any  way, 
provided  they  had  fufficient  evidence  of  their  piety. 
But  we  conclude  the  Pa^dobaprifts  in  general^  would 
join  with  us,  in  rejecting  a  fentiment  ib  fubverfive  of 
gofpel  order,  and  fny  with  the  apoftle,  '<  We  have  no 
iuch  cuftom,  neither  the  churches  of  God." 

If  thefe  obfervations  be  juft,  they  will  bring  us  to  the- 
ti  ue  ground  of  the  controverfy  ;  which  is,  not  whether 
we  ought  to  communicate  with  .  unbaptized  perfonsj 
but  whether  we  ought  not  to  believe  that  to  be  gofpel 
baptifm  which  is  adminirtered  by  fprinkling  only,  and 
to  i'uch  fubie(ft:s  as  make  no  profeliion  of  their  faith  .'' 
For  notwithlianding  they  conftantly  blame  us  for  refu- 
iing  them  communion  at  the  Lord's  table,  they  do, it 
always  upon  the  fu^ipofition,  that  they.are  baptized  as- 
well  as  we.  Wc  have  repeatedly  declared,  that  wc 
could  not  confcientioufly  believe  them  to  be  baptized, 
according  to  the  retjuircment  of  the  inftitution.  We 
chink  our  brethren  ought  to  believe  us.  Our  practice 
lu/iiciently  demonftrates  the  fincerity  of  the  declaration, 
l  or  could  we  witli  a  good  confcieuce  recede  from  a 
pracH^ice  fo  very  obnoxious  to  other  Chviftians,  they  cer- 
tainly muft  fuppofe  wc  fliould  wifti  to  do  it.  Therefore 
to  charge  us  with  holding  the  fentiment  merely  from 
party  fpirit,  or  with  aview^to  make  a  fchifm  in  the 
body  of  believers,  is  both  ungenerous  and  unjuft.  We 
<L2 


166 


APPENDIX. 


folemnly  declare,  if  we  know  the  motives  of  our  con- 
dutft,  that  nothing  lefs  than  a  confcientious  regard  to 
what  we  believe  to  be  the  will  of  God  our  baviour 
manifefted  in  his  word,  influences  our  prai^tice  in  this 
particular. 

If  we  have  been  able  clearly  to  comprehend  and  ftate 
the  fubjeft  of  the  difpute,  and  to  fliew  where  the  dif- 
ficulty lies  ;  the  next  queftion  will  be,  What  can  be 
done  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  favourable  ifTue  ?  We 
fee  at  prefent  only  two  ways,  in  which  this  can  be  ef- 
fefted.  The  firft  is,  for  each  party  to  drop  the  difpute 
wholly,  and  to  conclude  his  brother  may  be  aChriftian, 
though  in  fome  points  he  may  be  erroneous.  Each 
concluding  to  retain  their  fentiments  entire,  until  they 
are  convinced  by  the  light  of  truth  that  they  are  wrong. 
Determining  like  the  Bcreans  to  learch  the  fcriptures, 
and  fee  if  thefe  things  are  fo  ;  and  in  the  mean  time  to 
unite  in  every  thing  in  which  they  are  agreed,  in  aid- 
ing the  common  caufe  of  our  glorious  Redeemer. 

(Should  the  above  be  rejeifted,  we  conceive  the  only 
remaining  way  will  be,  for  each  party  to  bring  their 
whole  ftrength  to  the  conteft,  and  determine  to  conquer, 
or  be  conquered. 

The  former  of  thefe,  is  certainly  the  mnfr  pleafant 
and  defirable  ;  and  if  it  can  be  thought  pradlicable 
ought  to  be  purfued.  What  real  objedticn  can  there 
be  to  a  practice  which  approximates  to  that  chnnty  ivhich 
MUvfth  nil  things,  hopeth  all  things  ?  What  ohjeflion  ? 
a  very  ferious  one,  fays  niy  Pa;dobap*i:t  brother  !  You 
refule  to  admit  me  to  your  communion  table  ;  and  this 
you  pretend  to  do,  becaufe  you  fay  1  am  not  rightly  bap- 
tized. You  therefore  evidently  "  confider  me  as  one  of 
I  lie  antichrijliaii  world."  And  by  thus  treating  me, 
"  you  place  me  without,  W^^rf  are  dogs,  and  forcerers,and 
whortinongers,  and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and  'zukofoi.vcr 
loveth  and  maketh  a  lie."*  No,  my  dear  brother,  you  in- 
fer too  haftily.  We  do  not  confider  you  as  ««  one  of  the 
nntichriftian  ivorld"  but  as  a  dear  child  of  God  :  yet  we 
i'erioufiy  think  you  are  in  an  error  refpefting  baptifm. 
We  can  by  no  means  bring  ourfelves  to  believe,  that 

•  Vid  Mr.  Audio's  Letters,  p.  j,  8. 


APPENDIX. 


167 


to  be  a  Chrifiian,  and  to  be  baptized,  are  precifely  the 
i.ime  thing.  You  feem  to  fuppofe,  that  we  lay  an  un- 
due rtrefs  upon  baptifm.  But  is  it  not  evident  that  you 
l.iv  much  more  ?  For  the  want  of  it,  wholly  unchi-if- 
tianizes  a  perfon  in  your  view  :  in  ours,  it  only  proves 
ins  obedience  defective,  without  impeaching  his  motives. 
We  fuppofe  that  b'iminefs  tn  pari  has  hcpper.ed  to  bim,  but 
;lo  not  determine  his  heart  to  be  prevailingly  wicked. 

The  want  of  baptifm  can  take  no  more  from  a  man, 
than  the  poiTeilion  of  it  could  add  to  him  ;  for  if  bap- 
tifm alone  would  not  make  him  a  Chriuian,  then  the 
want  of  it  cannot  wholly  unchriftianize  him.  Bclides, 
if  you  have  that  charity  which  beareth  all  thhigs^  and 
which  endioeth  all  things^  will  it  not  enable  you  to  bear 
n.mtk  us  a  little  in  this  Jolh,*  if  indeed  you  efteem  it  to 
be luch  ? 

Should  we  not  all  a£l  much  more  in  character  as 
Chritlians,  to  unite  in  every  point  of  truth  in  which  we 
are  agreed,  rather  than  to  treat  each  other  with  fuch 
unchriftian  indiflerence,  merely  becaufe  we  are  not 
agreed  in  every  thing  ?  No,  replies  another  Psdobaptiffc 
brother,  all  your  profellions  of  friendihip  are  of  no 
avail,  fo  long  as  you  "  withhold  communion  from  us, 
thereby  treating  us  as  unchriltened  heathens,  aliens 
from  the  church  and  covenant  of  God."f  My  dear 
Sir,  you  do  not  do  us  juftice.  Your  inference  is  the 
mort  unfavourable  that  could  be  made.  We  certainly 
mean  no  fuch  thing  by  the  practice  which  you  repre- 
hend ;  noi-  can  we  fee  that  it  neceflariiy  implies  what 
you  infer.  Is  there  no  other  poflible  way  in  which  we 
I  an  manifefi:  our  Chriftian  affeftion  to  each  other,  un- 
Lls  we  meet  at  the  fame  communion  table  ^  If  the 
members  of  a  particular  church  have  no  other  way  of 
i-xprefllng  their  love  to  each  other,  than  at  periodical 
Icaions  to  meet  together  at  the  Lord's  table,  we  mult 
I  onclude  they  are  unacquainted  with  many  of  the  prin- 
cipal advantages  to  be  derived  from  iha  Chriftian  pro- 
hdlion. 

The  fcriptures  lead  us  to  concei-ve  that  this  nsyjlic  rl.'e 
was  deligned  by  our  bleiTed  Saviour  to  reprefcrt  his 


♦  3  Cor.  iL  I,  f  Dr.  Ofgood's  Ulfc.  on  Baptifm,  p.  lo. 


1G8 


APPENDIX. 


death,  and  as  an  expreffion  of  our  bopeof  interoft  in  it ; 
and  lb,  by  confequence,  to  be  o/ie  token  of  Chriftian  fel- 
lowfliip.  But  how  many  thoufands  of  Chriftians  there 
are  of  the  fame  denomination,  who  have  fellowfhip  with! 
each  other,  but  who  never  did,  and  perhaps  never  will, 
meet  together  at  the  fame  facramental  table. 

It  is  fully  believed  that  a  confiderable  proportion  of 
the  two  denominations  are  agreed  in  the  moft  important 
articles  of  the  Chriftian  faith.  It  is  hence  certainly  de- 
firable  they  fIiould<  unite  their  efforts  to  advance  this- 
befl  of  interefts,  and  to  oppofe  the  enemies  o£  our  comr 
mon  falvation^ 

Many  of  our  brethren  tell  us,  they  have  leng  ardentt. 
ly  defired  this  union  among  all  real  Chriftians  but 
— but  what  ?  Why  we  have,  fay  they,  one  very  im- 
portant objeftion  ;  you  will  not  tidmit  us  to  communion 
with  you.  Suppofmg  we  cannot  confcientioufly  ;  what 
then  ?  Why  then,  we  think  it  beft  to  have  no  religious 
connexion  with  you  whatever.  Well,  if  it  muft  be  fo, 
it  niuft.  But  admitting  we  are  in  an  error  in  this  par- 
ticular, is  it  of  fuch  a  nature  as  aftually  to  forbid  all 
Chriftian  iutercourfe  with  us  ?  We  really  believe  you. 
to  be  in  an  error  as  it  refpecls  both  the  fubjects  and  the 
mode  of  baptifm.  We  are  willing  to  allow  you  to  fornn 
the  fame  opinion  of  us  with  rel'pedt  to  our  terms  of  com- 
munion ;  (for  it  muft  be  remembered  that  you  can  readily 
overlook,  all  the  reft  of  our  errors,;  if  we  would  only 
confent  to  free  communion)  now  what  decifion  can  it 
be  fuppofed  an  impartial  judge  would  pais  upon  our 
difference  of  opinion  on  thefe  points  ?  Would  he  not 
rationally  conclude,  that  all  who  are  in  heart  friendly, 
to  the  Lord  Jefus  ChriiV,  and  who  agree  in  the  effential 
articles  of  the  Chriftian  fiiith,  ought  cordially  to  unite 
their  endeavom:^  to  build  up  the  caufe  of  the  dear  Re- 
deemer ?  Here  we  think  we  are  willing  to  meet  our 
brethren,  and  leave  every  thing  of  lefs  moment  to  the. 
light  of.  truth  to  adjuft.  Who  then  are  the  blameable- 
caufe  of  the  prefent  difunion  ?  Attempts  will  undoubt- 
edly be  made,  to  lay  it  at  the  door  of  the  Baptifts  : 
yea,  it  is  already  placed  to  their,  account.  For,  fays  ai 
Rev.  Pwdobaptill  brother,  «  Were  they  equally  liberal 


APPENDIX.  1G9 

arid  candid,  (as  we  are)  the  utiity  of  thcfp'irit  in  the  botid 
of  peace  mxghx  be  preferved,  and  all  clamour,  ftrife,  and 
divilion,  happily  prevented.  Upon  whom  then,  does 
the  guilt  of  thefe  evils  lie  ?"*  We  are  unwilling  to 
bear  the  blame,  if  we  can  honourably  clear  ourlelvcs 
of  it  ;  and  we  are  determined  to  make  an  eiFort  to  that 
purpofe. 

In  meeting  our  brethren  on  the  ground  above  ftPted, 
we  think  we  meet  them  fairly.  V/e  nlk  no  relinquilh- 
ment  of  fentiment  on  their  part.  We  admit  them  juft 
as  they  are.  But  in  propofing  to  unite  with  us,  they 
tnfift  upon  our  giving  up  an  article  which  is  interwoven 
with  every  pait  of  our  fentiments  as  Baptifts.  The  im- 
partial will  hence  judge  which  party  is  juftly  chargeable 
with  the  want  of  candour. 

If  our  brethren  are  determined  on  this  point,  that 
they  will  have  no  religious  connexion  with  us,  nor  fellow- 
ftiip  us  as  members  of  the  houiehold  of  faith,  unlefs 
we  give  up  our  particular  communion,  we  think  we  have 
a  right  to  expert  from  them  fatisfaftory  proof  of  one  of 
the  two  following  articles.  Namely, 

F'nj}.  That  baptifm  is  not,  by  the  order  of  the  gofpel, 
required  as  an  indifpenfable  pre-requifite  to  a  vilible 
ftanding  in  the  church  of  Chrift,  and  confequently  to  a 
participation  at  the  Lord's  table.  Or, 

Secondly.  That  neither  a  viilble  profeflion  of  faith, 
rror  an  immerfion  in  water,  are  elfential  to  gofpel  bap- 
tifm. 

We  think  we  have  a  right  to  expcvS^  them  to  furniiTi 
proof  on  one  of  thefe  points,  or  ceafe  to  blame  us  for 
our  limited  communion.  We  fee  no  way  at  prefent 
how  we  can  give  up  the  former,  or  adin'.t  the  latter, 
without  violating  our  own  confciences.  And  yet  every 
perfon  of  common  difcernment  muft  fee,  that  we  prac- 
tically admit  one  or  the  other,  by  uniting  in  free  com- 
munion with  fuch  as  we  deem  unbaptized. 

Will  our  brethren,  who  charge  us  with  being  con- 
tracttd  in  our  views,  attempt  to  prove,  that  believers  in 
the  apoflolic  age  were  admitted  to  communicue  to- 
gether at  the  Lord's  table,  without  iirft  fubmitting  to 


•  Dr.  0'"gi>od'>  Difc.p.  xi. 


17a 


APPENDIX. 


baptifm,  as  a  prior  inftitution  ?  We  think  they  will  not. 
An  attempt  of  this  kind  would  have  to  encounter  not 
only  the  fciipture  hiftory,  but  the  univerfal  fentiment 
and  practice  of  Chriftians  of  all  denominations,  from  the^ 
commencement  of  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  down  to  the 
prefent  day  i  we  hence  conclude  none  will  undertake 
it.  As  the  fubjeft  in  difpute  has  not,  as  we  recoiled, 
been  alTumed  on  this  ground,  we  fliall  not  at  prefent 
attempt  to  adduce  arguments  to  oppofe  it.  We  ftali 
therefore  take  it  for  granted,  until  fome  one  attempts  to 
prove  the  contrary,  that  the  two  denominations  are 
agreed  on  this  point. 

The  queftion  in  difpute  may  be  reduced  then  to  this 
fingle  point  :  Whether  thofe  who  have  only  been  fprink- 
Icd  in  infancy,  before  they  had  any  knowledge  of  good 
or  evil,  and  confequently  before  they  were  capable  ef 
profefBng  faith  in  Chrift,  are  to  be  confidered  as  bap- 
tized perfons,  (and  hence  duly  qualified  for  communion 
at  the  Lord's  table)  according  to  the  divine  inftitution  ? 
To  this  queftion,  the  Bapcifts  give  their  decided  nega- 
tive. They  have  uniformly  infilled,  that  none  have  a 
right  to  the  inftitution,  but  fuch  as  profefs  to  believe 
•with  all  the  heart*  It  alfo  appears  clear  to  them,  that 
any  application  of  water,  fhort  of  an  entire  immerfion, 
or  bathing  of  the  whole  body,  cannot  be  confidered  as 
gofpel  baptifm.  The  Psdobaptifts  take  the  oppofite 
fide  of  the  queftion,  and  attempt  to  prove  the  right  of 
infants  to  baptifm,  not  from  New  Teftament  authority, 
but  from  the  covitiafit  of  circuvuiftsn  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed  ;  and  from  the  fimentfj  of  the  Jewifli 
and  Chriftian  churches.  They  alfo  attempt  to  juftify 
fprinkling,  or  any  partial  application  of  water  for  bap- 
tifm, principally  on  the  ground  that  the  inftitution  is 
delivered  in  fuch  indefinite  language,  that  nothing  more 
can  be  pofitively  determined,  than  that  water  in  the 
name  of  the  facred  Trinity  is  fome  how  or  other  to  be 
applied. 

From  this  plain  ftatcment,  the  reader  vyill  readily 
perceive  the  different  ground  the  parties  take,  and  will. 


*  Ads  viii.  37. 


APPENDIX. 


171 


be  able,  It  is  hoped,  in  the  fequel,  to  determine  fatisfafto- 
rily  which  fide  has  the  fupport  of  truth. 

That  we  may  avail  ourfelves  of  all  the  light  which 
our  opponents  have  to  offer  in  favour  of  the  above  fen- 
timents,  we  fliall  begin  with  an  examination  of  their  ar- 
guments in  fupport  of  them. 


SECTION  n. 

The  Arguments  for  Infant  Memherfhip  in  the  Gcfpel  Churcl?^ 
inferred  from  the  Covenant  of  Circumctfion,  confiderecl. 

The  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  a  general  topic 
reforted  to  by  nearly  all  the  advocates  for  infant  bap- 
tifm.  Few  have  attempted  to  defend  it  as  having  de- 
rived its  authority  entirely  from  the  New  Teftament. 
Hence  when  you  aflc  a  P^edobaptift  for  his  warrant  fat 
infant  baptifm,  he  will  at  once  refer  you  to  the  xviith. 
chapter  of  Genefis,  and  repeat  a  part  of  the  covenant 
■of  circumcifion  j  (for  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  Psedo- 
baptifts  claim  no  intereft  in  the  greater  part  of  that  cov- 
^ant,  any  more  than  the  Baptifts  do.)  Here  he  will 
inform  you,  that  God  was  gracioufly  pleafed  to  make 
'a  grant  in  favour  of  the  infant  feed  of  the  Jewifli  pa- 
triarch, and  promifed  that  the  blefllng  of  Abraham 
fhould  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  faith.  The  fame 
grant,  he  will  tell  you,  fecures  to  the  offspring  of  every 
believer  the  right  of  admiflion  to  the  gofpel  church  and 
its  privileges.  As  if  this  ftatement  were  an  unequivocal 
anfwer  to  your  inquiry,  you  may  expeft  him  to  turn  upon 
you  with  an  air  of  affurance,  and  demand  of  yOu  cate- 
gorical proof,  when  and  where  this  rite  of  infants  was 
roer  vacated  ? 

But  it  muft  bfe  obferved,  that  this  is  taking  for 
granted  the  very  point  in  difpute  ;  i.  e.  That  infants 
have  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  becaufe  infants  under  the 
law  had  a  right  to  circumcifion.  That  the  male  off- 
fpring  of  Abrahajtn,  and  of  his  natural  feed,  and  of  his 


172 


APPENDIX. 


fervants  and  their  feed,  were  proper  fubje6ls  of  the  rii( 
of  circiimcifion,  no  Baptill:  we  beheve  ever  difputed. 
But,  that  the  partial  rite  of  infants  (for  it  was  only  fuch) 
under  the  legal  difpenfation,  Ihould,  without  any  renewal 
of  the  grant  or  other  intimation,  fecure  for  them  gener- 
ally a  right  to  baptifm  under  the  gofpcl  difpenfation,  is 
an  inference  that  cannot  be  admitted  without  proof. 
This  proof  is  what  the  Baptifts  have  long  alked  for, 
but  have  never  yet  been  able  to  obtain.  The  agreement 
between  thefe  two  difpenfations  will  be  more  particu- 
larly confidered  under  the  next  head. 

Our  bufinefs  at  prefent  is,  to  examine  the  evidence 
in  favour  of  uifant  memberlhip  in  the  Chriftian  church, 
as  founded  and  refting  on  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
Faffing  over  for  the  prefent,  God's  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, which  contained  the  promife  of  the  Meffiah,  and 
the  bleffing  of  the  Gentile  nations  in  him,  we  lhall  pro- 
ceed immediately  to  the  confideration  of  this  covenant.* 

In  the  xviith.  chapter  of  Genefis  this  covenant  is  re- 
corded at  large.  Tne  i'everal  articles  of  it  may  be  enu- 
merated and  diftlngulihed  as  follows. 

Art.  I.  /  luill  make  my  ccvenant  hdnveen  me  and  thee^ 
AND  WILL  MULTIPLY  THI  F.  EXCEEBINGLY,  Gen.  Xvii.  2. 

The  promlflory  part  of  this  article  refpefted  the  nat- 
ural offspring  of  Abraham,  and  nothing  more,  as  appears 
by  numerous  other  pafTages  of  fcripture,  as  well  as  the 
one  before  us :  unlcfs  it  Ihould  be  thought  that  Abra- 
ham's natural  feed  was  typical  of  his  fpiritual.  The 
promife  in  this  article  has  been  literally  and  extenfively 
fulfilled 

Art.  II.  Behold  my  avctiant  is  ivith  thee,  and  thou  Pah 
he  a  FA7HER  OF  many  nations,  ver.  4,  5. 

The  fulfilment  of  this  part  of  the  covenant  is  eafily 
traced  in  the  facred  hiffory.  A  number  of  diftin<£t  na- 
tions did  arife  from  the  feed  of  Abraham,  fome  of  which 
remain  to  the  prefent  day.  There  is  nothing  in  this 
article  which  points  us  directly  to  the  church  of  Chrift. 
The  utmofl  that  can  fairly  be  naade  out,  will  be  only  a 
typical  reference. 

•  As  this  covenant  wa;  called  by  a  New-TeftaiheM  Martyr  tke  cov* 
enant  of  cir«inj«iCon,  \\e  know  of  no  better  flame  by  which  to  call  it 


APPENDIX. 


1T3 


Art.  III.  The  third  particular  promifed  on  God's 
behalf  to  Abraham,  was,  not  only  that  he  fhould  be  the 
Father  of  a  riuniercus,  but  of  a  roya/  race.  And  KINGS 
SHALL  COME  OF  THKE,  ver.  G. 

This  refpefted  not  the  church  of  God,  as  fuch,  under 
any  dirpenfatioii  ;  but  the  natural  offspring  of  the  pa- 
triarch. Nor  is  there  any  difficulty  in  tracing  the  lit- 
eral fulfilment  of  this  p?.rt  of  the  covenant.  If  we  ex- 
amine the  hiltory  of  Iibmael,  Abraham's  firft-born,  or 
the  family  of  Ifaac,  the  immediate  heir  of  promife,  we 
lhall  find  kings  in  abundance  did  fpring  from  Abraham. 
The  account  which  has  come  dmvn  to  us  in  the  facred 
pages,  refpe^^ing  thefe  nations  and  their  kings,  furnilbes 
inconteftable  proof,  that  by  far  the  greateit  part  were 
very  wicked,  and  many  of  them  grofs  idolaters.  View 
them  coUe^lively  or  individually,and  you  will  fcarcely  be 
a')le  to  trace  a  typical  refemblance  of  thatchorch,  which 
Jcfus  Chrift  fet  up,  under  the  new  difpenfation  \  much 
lefs  the  cliurch  in  an  organized  gofpel  ftate. 

Art.  IV.  /  %vUl  ejlablijh  viy  covenant  bt'liveen  me  and 
thee,  niiti  thy  feed  afttr  thte,  in  their  generations,  FOR  AN 
EVERLASTING  COVENANT,  TO  BE  A  GoD  UNTO  THEE 
AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE.  AnD  I  WILL  GIVE 
UNTO  THEE  AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE,  THE 
LAND  WHEREIN   1  HOU   ART  4   STRANGER,     ALL  THE 

LAND  ov  Canaan,  for  an  EvtRi.AsriNG  possession, 
AND  I  WILL  BE  iHtiR  Gou,  ver.  7,  8. 

As  this  part  of  the  covenant  contains  tlie  great  prin- 
ciple, from  whence  our  Pardobaptlft  brethren  draw  their 
main  arguments,  we  will  endeavour  to  examine  every 
part  of  it  carefully. 

Here  are  two  leading  ideas  in  this  article.  The  firft 
is,  God's  promile  to  be  a  GoD  to  /ibraham  and  his  feed. 
The  fecond,  to  give  them  the  land  cf  Cana  in.  This  cove- 
nant, taken  collcdively,  is  cdled  an  everlajling  covenatit  ; 
and  the  grant  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  an  everbjling  pcffiffton. 
Whatever  bleflings  were  included  in  this  covenant,  or 
granted  by  this  poircilion,  all  were  conveyed  by  the  fame 
tenor.  The  fame  words  of  perpetuity  are  affixed  to  each. 

That  God  has  long  fince  by  his  prophet  pronounced 
•  Leammi  upon  that  people,*  and  by  his  righteous  prov- 


•  Hof.  i.  9. 


171 


APPENDIX. 


Idcnce  rejefted  them  from  all  fpecial  vifible  relation  to 
him,  can  no  more  be  denied,  than  that  he  has  fuffered 
them  to  be  driven  Out,  and  difpoflelTed  of  the  land  of 
promife. 

Wc  will  now  proceed  to  inquire  more  particularly 
n  liat  was  promifeJ  in  this  evcrlafting  covenant  *  The 
language  is,  /  will  eflnbli/lj  my  covenant,  Ikc.  to  he  a  God 
Unti  thee,  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee.  The  queflion  is,  whrxt 
did  Gcd  engage  by  this  promife  ?  "  Every  thing,"  fays 
one,  that  a  God  of  mercy  can  bc  ftox  upon  fallen 
creatures,  for  time  and  eternity."  Indeed  this  is  a  gen- 
eral poftulatum,  taken  by  the  writers  on  that  fide  of  the 
conrrovsrfy.  But  is  it  correft  ?  Will  they  be  willing 
to  abide  by  all  the  confequcnces,  which  will  unavoida' 
bly  follow  fuch  a  fuppofition  ?  "When  God  faid,  /  ivill 
be  a  Gcd  to  thee,  and  to  thy  feed,  "  the  proniife  is  as  mi:ch 
to  the  feed,  as  to  Abraham,"  fays  a  zealous  advocate 
for  infant  memberftiip.:}:  Very  well.  But  what  was 
engaged  in  this  promife  }  Was  it  a  promlle  of  abfolure 
faving  bleffings  ?  If  not,  we  are  difputing  about  noth- 
ing. 

*  Some  perfons  appe.ir  to  lay  an  iiiuluc  ftrefi  upon  the  word  ivtrlaft- 
ing,  which  is  annexed  to  this  covenant,  as  though  it  were  a  peculiar 
chacadcriftic  of  it.  Whatever  ideas  ve  attach  to  this  exprelfion,  we 
certainly  ought  to  explain  it  corrcfpondcnt  to  fad,  to  the  adual  llate 
of  thiiu's. 

'J'lio  word  everlafting  tons  dort  not  appear  peculiar  as  ipplied  in  the 
cafe  before  m.  It  is  frequently  ufed  with  rcfpedl  to  other  oovcnants.f 
It  has  a  threefold  applicaticjn  as  connided  with  this  covenant.  The 
firft  i-^  general.  It  is  called  an  evt  rlaftir.fr  covenant.  The  p(  filffion 
of  ^he  proniif.;d  land,  an  everlafting  polTeflion.  The  mark  left  upon 
the  fubicif  4  of  this  bloody  rite  is  thus  exprilTtd  ;  My  covenant  ftiall  be 
in  )our  jirji  for  an  encrlnjlirig  covmant-  Our  hrtthnn  very  tcna«ioufly 
ret;.in  the  tirft  of  thtfe,  but  have  no  difficulty  in  difpcnfing  with  the 
two  laft.  To  n»  they  appear  fo  entirely  connec'tcd,  that  we  are  led  to 
coi>fidcr  them  all  of  the  fame  import.  Yea,  it  appears  to  us  that  the 
two  latter  are  exegctical  of  the  former.  Ax.  leaft,  no  part  of  the  cove- 
nant can,  by  fnir  conflnidion,  he  carried  to  a  greater  extent  <  f  time, 
than  the  mark  of  circiimcifion  in  the  flefh,  and  the  pofllflion  of  the  land 
.6f  Canaan,  both  of  which  are  faid  to  be  evcrlafting.  Hence  we  fee, 
that  two  part?  of.tliis  covenant  called  evcrlafting  have  come  to  an  end, 
V  hile  in  oiie  inflance  the  exprefllon  is  retained,  for  the  purpofc  of  aid- 
Ipg  Infant  baptifm. 

\  See  Lev.  Tiiv.  8.  xiii.  17.    4  Satn.  xxilL  5,  &c, 
\  Mr.  P.  EJw'ards,  p.  77. 


APPENDIX. 


175 


We  fliall  take  the  liberty  to  ftate  a  few  queries,  in 
■  J  jr  to  throw  light  on  the  lubjeft. 
:  .  r.  Did  this  promife,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham's  feed, 
<jct  his  natural  or  fpiritual  feed  ?  If  the  former,  then 
Gentiles  cannot  be  included,  for  this  plain  reafon, 
V  arc  not  his  otlspring.    If  the  latter,  none  but  be- 
.  I  S  can  be  intererted  ;  for  no  other  are  the  fpiritual 
uf  Abraham.    In  either  cafe  it  fupports  no  claim  in 
>Lir  of  the  unbelieving  children  of  the  Gentiles. 
■Jd.  Was  this  promifo  abfolute  ?  or  was  it  conditional  ? 
If  ablblute,  (suid  it  contained  the  faving  bleffings  of 
'    'omption)  will  it  not  prove  that  all  the  defcendants 
Vbraliam  to  the  latefl:  period  of  time  will  be  faved  ? 
think  this  v.  ill  unavoidably  follow.    But  this  proves 
loo  much,  becaule  it  proves  againft  fa£l,  ;md  fo  deftroys 
itfelf.    If  we  are  Loconfider  this  as  a  conditional  promife 
of  liilvation,  it  will  oblige  us  to  inquire, 

3d.  What  were  the  conditions  on  which  its  blefljngs 
jTcre  fulpended  ?  Were  they  any  thing  Ihort  of  faith 
and  repentance  ?  If  fo,  it  could  not  be  a  promile  ex- 
tending to  all  Abraham's  poUerity  containing  eternal 
life  •,  for  none  but  penitent  believers  have  any  fuch 
promifi;  made  to  them.  Nor  will  any  others,  let  them 
aefcend  from  whom  they  may,  ever  flrare  in  the  final 
bleflings  of  redemption. 

4th.  Whatever  elfe  might  be  contained  in  the  prcm- 
ife  made  to  Abraham  and  his  leed  in  this  covenant,  if  it 
did  not  ccHitain  an  abfolute  promife  of  eternal  life,  it  is 
urged  again  (t  us  in  this  controverl'y  to  no  purpole  ;  and 
tnuft  in  tliat  cafe  be  acknov/ledged  to  be  tHrentially  dif- 
ferent from  what  God  has  promifed  to  behevers.  God's 
promifes  rcfpecfing  his  believing  people  are  abfuUue. 
They  are  not  yea  and  nay  ;  but  yea  cutd  anun  to  the  glory 
of  God  by  lis.  He  that  heareth  my  %u^rjs,  faid  Jeius,  and 
htiievtth  on  him  that  fent  me,  hath  everloftiug  life,  and Jhall 
NEVER  COME  INTO  CONDEMNATION.* 

5th.  If  all  Abraham's  defcendants,  through  every  pe- 
riod of  time,  are  not  liived  with  a  complete  and  everlaft- 
ing  falvation  ;  will  it  not  prove  beyond  a  reafonable 
doubt,  that  God  promil'ed  no  fuch  thing,  in  his  engagc- 


*  John  V.  24. 


APPENDIX. 


ment,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  ?  We 
think  that  none,  unlefs  they  are  Univerfahfts,  will  have 
the  madnefs  to  fay,  that  all  the  natural  offspring  of 
Abraham  have  been,  or  will  be  faved.  Nor  will  any 
impioufly  dare  to  charge  God  with  a  violation  of  his 
promife. 

6th.  If  it  fliould  be  faid,  that  God  did  not  engage 
abfolutely  to  fave  all  Abraham's  pofterity,  including  the 
fon  of  the  bond-woman,  the  fix  fons  of  Keturah  and 
their  defcendants  ;  Efau,  Achan,  Korah,  Dachan,  and 
Abiram,  with  all  that  unbelieving  race,  whofe  carcaffcs 
fell  in  the  wildernefs  ;  but  that  he  only  engaged  to  five 
fuch  as  trulled  in,  and  obeyed  him  ;  this  would  be  a 
complete  abandonment  of  the  argument  ;  for  it 
would  place  fuch  as  claim  intereft  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  exactly  upon  a  level  with  all  others.  God 
has  engaged  to  fave  all  others  who  reverence,  wor(hip, 
and  obey  him  j  thugh  Abraham  be  ignorant  of  them,  and 
Ifrael  acknowledge  them  not.*  We  have  no  difficulty  in 
bflieving,  that  all  who  are  truly  pious,  whether  circum- 
cifcd  or  uncircumcifed,  baptized  or  unbaptized,  will  be 
faved. 

7th.  We  muft  be  allowed  to  query  once  more.  If 
God  has  not  promifed  falvation  abfolutely  to  the  feed  of 
Abraham  generally,  including  all  the  unbelievers  of 
that  nation  ;  can  the  promife  be  fuppofed  to  make  any 
better  provifion  for  the  unbelieving  feed  of  Gentile  be- 
lievers ?  It  certainly  cannot.  For  if  God  fpared  not 
the  natural  branches  bccnufe  of  unbeliif,  it  can  hardly  be 
fuppofed  that  Gentile  unbelievers,  whether  young  or 
old,  can  have  any  real  intereft  in,  or  union  to,  the  True 
Vine. 

If  the  reader  can  keep  in  mind  the  above  queries, 
and  can  without  prejudice  allow  them  their  proper 
weight,  he  will  want  much  more  than  mere  aflertion  to 
fatisfy  him,  that  the  infant  feed  of  believers  have  a  right 
to  membcrlhip  in  the  gofpel  church,  in  confequence  of 
the  promife  made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  in  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion. 


•  Ifu.kiii.  1 6. 


APPENDIX. 


177 


Could  we  believe  with  our  brethren,  that  the 
above  protnife  mude  to  Abraham  and  his  feed,  has  de- 
ftended  in  the  ful'eft:  extent  to  Gentile  believers  and 
their  feed,  the  preceding  queries  would  prefent  the 
fame  difficulties  in  iliis  application  of  it,  as  in  tlie  for- 
mer. It  would  in  this  cafe  be  extremely  natural  to  afk. 
What  has  God  promifed  to  the  children  of  Pxdobaptift 
believers,  m  <re  than  to  the  children  of  other  believers  ? 
Has  he  promifed  falvation  t6  any  while  impenitent,  cm 
the  account  of  the  piety  of  their  parents  ?  or  merely 
becaufe  they  have  been  baptized  ?  It  rauft  be  anfwercJ 
in  the  negative. 

From  thefe  different  views  of  the  fubjeft,  the  argu- 
ment feems  tc  be  verging  to  a  point  ;  and  this  will  be 
the  only  juft  conclafion.  He  that  believetk,titid  is  bjptizfd, 
whether  defcendcd  from  believing,  or  infidel  parents, 

Jhall  be  faved  ;  aud he  thiit  beluveth  iiU,  liowever  pious  hi; 
ancfcftors,^a//  be  damned.  The  fame  Lord  over  all^  it  ruh 
unto  all  luhj  call  up,n  him  :  for  there  is  no  refbeEl  cf  per- 

fons  with  C.d. 

In  attempting  to  accommodate  this  covenant  with 
its  dilhnguilhing  inftitute,  to  the  ft:ue  of  the  Gentile 
church  under  the  gofpel  economy,  we  meet  with  diili- 
culties  at  every  ftage.  We  are  obliged  to  pafs  through 
a  long  train  of  analogical  and  inferential  reafoning^, 
which  few  perfons  are  competent  to,  in  order  to  find  i 
plain  gofpel  inftitution,  equally  defigned  for  men  and 
women  of  all  nations  and  capacities  !  But  for  wh:vt  is  ail 
this  labour  ?  Is  it  not  to  fupport  a  tradition  which  hris 
no  foundation  in  the  word  of  God,  nor  in  any  authcn- 
lic  hiftory  of  the  primitive  apoftolic  church  ?  Does  h 
not  appear  inuch  more  natural  and  fafe  to  go  firth  by  tit- 

fiotjcps  of  the  flock  ;  following  our  good  SnEtHiRD  in 
his  own  example  ;  remembering,  that  ivhttt  he  piilUlh 

forth  his  own  Jheep,  he  goeth  before  th-t^n  ? 

We  think  it  has  been  made  fuillcient^y  plain  in  the 
preceding  remarks,  that  if  the  covenant  promife  to 
Abraham's  feed  refpeflcd  his  natural  feed,  none  of  thc 
Gentilcs  can  be  interefted  in  it.  If  it  refpeeled  hk 
fpiritual  feed,  none  but  believers  can  be  interefted  ;  for 
no  others,  in  the  language  of  the  New  Teftament,  arc 
B  2 


178 


APPENDIX. 


confidered  as  the  children  of  Abraham.  Honre  wo  fee 
nothing  to  fupport  the  claim  of  infants,  to  membcrihip 
in  the  gofpel  church. 

But  fhould  we  admit  the  premifes  laid  down  by  our 
Psedobaptifl:  brethren,  will  they  confent  to  abide  the 
fair  legitimate  confequences  of  their  own  arguments 
We  very  much  doubt  it. 

Their  ftatement,  if  we  underftand  them,  is  this;  That 
believers  and  their  offspring  imder  the  prefent  difpen- 
fation,  ftand  in  the  fame  covenant  relation  to  God,  as 
Abraham,  and  his  offspring  did,  under  the  former. 
And  that  they  are  under  the  fame  obligation  to  baptize 
their  children,  that  Abrrdiam  and  his  pofterity  were  to 
circumcife  theirs.    Let  us  now  bring  the  matter  to  trial. 

By  what  authority  did  Abraham  prefume  to  circum- 
cife the  males  of  his  houfe  ?  By  the  undoubted  author- 
ity of  God.  Here  it  follows  ;  y^nd  God faid  unto  Abra- 
ham, thou  Jhalt  keep  my  covenant.,  therefore^  thou  and  thy  feed 
after  thee  in  their  generations.  This  is  my  covenant  whicij 
ye  ffmll  keep  bt'liveen  me  and  you,  and  thy  feed  after  thee  4 
every  man-child  among  you fhall  be  ctrcumcifcd.  -And  ye  fiull 
circumcife  the  f,fh  of  your  forejkin^  and  it  fhall  be  a  token  bf 
the  covenant  betivixt  me  and  you.  He  that  is  eight  days  c^d 
JJmll  be  circumcifed  among  yo/u  ;  every  man-child  in  your  gen- 
erations ;  he  that- is  botight  -with  thy  money  of  any  flranger 
that  is  not  of  thy  fad.  'Me  that  is  born  in  thy  houfe,  and  he 
that  is  bought 'luith  thy  money  mujt  -needs  be  circumcifed  : 
and  mv  co-v^tianifJoall  be  in  your  fl'fh  for  ii«'Bv6Rl,ASTir^G 

COVENANT.* 

Here  we  fee,  that  Abraham  was  obliged  to  circumcife 
all  the  males  of  his  houfe,  whether  old  or  ^bung,  with- 
out the  leaft  r3!jard  to  their  moral  qualillcatidns.  No 
previous  dcclaraltoii  of  faith  and  repentance  was  re- 
quired", either  in  aduhs  or  infants.  If  this  be  indeed 
"  the  great  charter  of  all  our  privileges,"  and  the  very 
law  on  which  houfehold  baptifm  depends  ;  we  a(k,  and 
alk  ferioufly,  ought  not  our  brethren  to  prsictile  ac- 
cording to  it  in  it's  full  Extent,  if  they  would  be  con- 
fiftent  I  The  patriarch  not  only  believed,  but  obeyed. 

In  the  felfsatoe'^day  was' Ifc- 


*  Gcii.  Jtvii.  9 — 14. 


APPENDIX. 


1:9 


/  his  Jen,  ami  all  the  men  of  his  hoiifc;  born  in  his  lx>ufe, 
/  bought  with  mofiry  of  the  Jlrangevy  were  cirmmafed 
:k  him.'*    Do  Poedobaptills  adminifter  baptifm  to  the 
ne  extent  as  Abraham  did  circumcillon  ?   Is  it  ufual 
"ichthem  to  Iraptize  not  only  the  children  of  a  family, 
but  all  the  domeftics,  upon  the  faith  of  the  niafter,  or 
head  of  the  family  ? 

The  argument  by  which  the  right  of  infants  is  fup- 
ported  is  this,  "  a  precept  once  in  force,  and  not  lim- 
ited to  any  certain  period,  is  ever  after  to  be  confidered 
in  force,  unlefs  known  to  have  been  repealed  by  the 
fame  authority  by  which  it  was  given."f  We  alk,  and 
hope  we  fliall  have  a  fair  and  candid  anfwer,  if  fuch 
an  one  can  be  given.  When,  and  where  has  the  right 
•of  fervants  as  diftinguifhed  from  that  of  children  been 
repealed  ?  If  the  right  of  children  to  memberlhip  refts 
on  this  covenant,  is  not  the  right  of  fervants  com- 
pletely fecured  by  the  fame  ?  fhis  we  are  equally 
-bound  to  believe  as  the  former,  until  it  chn  be  fhown 
to  the  contrary.  ■ 

How  many  men-fervants  Abraham  had  at  th*  time 
circumcifion  was  inftituted,  w^  know  not  ;  but  ioine 
time  before  he  had  three  hundred.  Probably  as  many, 
or  more  at  this  time.  All,  were  they  mtore  or  le(«, 
were  circumcifed.  But  would  it  not  be  a  very  nov^l 
light  to  fee  one  of  oar  fouthern  planters  baptized,  aiid 
all  the  flaves  on  his  plantation  in  the  fame  day.  If  they 
were  all  true  Chriftians,  it  would  be  a  blelled  light  in- 
deed ;  but  not  otherwife. 

This  argument  will  probably  be  very  unplealant  to 
our  oppoiieiits,  but  we  appeal  to  them,  and  to  a  candid 
public,  w4ieiher-it  is  not  correft,  and  whether  it  can 
be  fairly  ev.iJcd  ?  If  the  covenant  of  circumcilion  will, 
by  fait-  <onltrn£l;ion,  fupport  the  right  of  infants  to 
memhorfhip  in  the  gofpel  church,  we  verily  believe, 
and  we  mart  contend,  that  the  right  of  fervMits  can  be 
liipported  by  it  to  the  fame  extent. 

2.  Ailecond  coiilequence  aiiling  from  the  premifes 
laid  down  by  oarbretiuen  is,  that  infants,  if  admitped  to 
bap*ifi»,  h^ve-an  undoubted  right  to  all  the  other;  priv- 


>«oOsn,^»it  16, 17.       •.  If  Mr;  a  WotccfUv'4  Difci  J..  '56, 


180 


APPENDIX. 


ileges  of  the  gofpel  church.  It  is  conceived  that  no 
reafon  can  be  alligned,  why  a  perfon  who  Is  qualified 
for  one  ordinance,  Is  not  equally  qualified  for  another. 
No  diftinclion  has  been  made  under  any  difpenfatlon. 
Circumclfion  was  the  principal  t[ualifying  pre-requiiite 
for  communion  in  the  pafchal  feaft,  and  for  all  the 
privileges  of  complete  mcmbcrfliip  in  the  Jewidi  church. 
Under  the  gofpel  difpenf.\tion,  They  that  gladly  nceivtd 
the  n'ord  -were  baptized  j  added  to  the  church,  and  then 
united  in  breaking  bread.  Do  Paedobaptifts  admit  all 
fuch  as  they  baptize  in  their  infancy,  to  a  participation 
in  all  the  privileges  of  the  Chriftian  church  ?  It  is  well 
known  they  do  not  :  and  yet  coniiflency  moft  plainly 
requires  it. 

That  we  reafon  fairly,  and  agreeably  to  the  views  of 
Psdobaptifts  themfelves,  the  following  quotations  will 
abundantly  fhow.  "  Circumcilion,"  fays  a  late  writer, 
««  was  formerly  the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  ndmi/fion  to 
the  church  of  God  ;  baptifni  is  now  the  appointed  pre- 
requifite  of  admiflion  to  the  fame  church.  In  a  word, 
baptifm  is  of  the  fame  import,  and  of  the  fame  ufe  in 
the  church  under  the  prcfent  difpenfatlon,  as  was  cir- 
cumclfion under  the  ancient."*  Says  another,  "  by  this 
fignlficant  rite  (circumclfion)  they  were  dedicated  to 
God,  and  dijllngulfljed from  the  rejl  of  the  world,  as  his 
church  and  pcoplr."-\  According  to  thefe  gentlemen, 
and  we  believe  they  are  corretSt  In  this,  baptifm  is  the 
appointed  medium  of  introduction  into  the  Chriitian 
thurch.  (It  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  remember 
this,  as  we  lhall  probably  have  occafion  to  make  fome 
further  ufe  of  it  by  and  by.)  But  how  glaringly  la- 
confiftent  muft  their  conduct  appear  when  compared 
with  their  reafonings  I 

In  order  to  carry  a  point  againft  the  Baptifts,  they 
infifi:  upon  it  that  their  baptized  infants  are  church 
members.  But  their  pra<^tice  tells  every  body,  that 
they  believe  no  fuch  thing.  We  appeal  to  common 
obfervation.  Do  they  conftantly  bring  their  children 
to  the  communion  table  ?  Do  they  maintain  any 
church  difcipline  over  them  ?  Are  they  .permitted  to 


*  Mr.  S.  Worceftcr's  Difc.p.  5a,  54- 


t  Dr.  Ofgoed. 


APPENDIX. 


181 


^  and  afl  in  church  matters  ?   Are  there  any  inftan- 
in  which  the  profane  and  Hceniious  have  been  the 
icfts  of  church  ccnfure  ?   A  lilent  negative  mud  be 
.  cn  to  all  thefe  queftions.    From  the  general  conduct 
ui  the  churches  that  hold  infant  baptifm,  a  candid 
mind  would  naturally  luppofe,  that  the  memberfhip  of 
infants,  if  it  ever  exifted,  ceafed  as  foon  as  they  were 
b  J  prized. 

Another  circumftance  which  ftrves  to  corroborate 
our  laft  obforvation  is,  that  they  admit  all  whom  they 
treat  as  church  members,  in  a  manner  funilar  to  what 
we  do.  Hence  we  arc  frequently  told,  on  fuch  a  day 
a  number  of  perfons  were  received  into  the  Rev. 

Mr.  *s  church,  and  at  another  time  twenty  more 

were  added,  and  fo  on.  if  our  Pa'dobaptift;  brethren 
ferioufly  believe  what  tliey  endeavour  to  make  us  be- 
lieve, that  all  their  baptized  children  were,  by  that  a£>, 
admitted  to  vilibie  inemberfliip  in  the  church,  we  can 
hardly  fee  the  propriety  cf  their  being  admitted  a  fec- 
ond  time  ;  unlefs  by  fome  mifconduft  of  their  own, 
they  had  loft  their  ftanding,  like  the  man  in  the  church 
at  Corinth,  whom  the  apoftle  exhorted  them  again  to  re- 
ceive, when  he  became  repentant. 

What  conclufion  would  any  candid  perfon  put  upon 
the  condu£\  of  a  Pa^dobaptift  church,  on  feeing  them 
receive  by  their  ufual  folemnity,  a  number  of  perfons 
into  vifible  fellov/fliip  with  them  Would  not  the  con- 
viction be  irrefiftible,  that  they  had  never  before  been 
confidered  as  cliurch  members  ?  Indeed,  for  any  to 
have  obferved  the  conduit  of  thefe  perfons,  and  cf  tlie 
church  towards  them,  during  the  whole  intervening 
period  from  their  baptifm  in  infancy,  to  their  making 
this  engagement  ;  would  it  be  poffible  to  drav.'  the  cor.- 
clulion,  that  any  relation  had  fubfifted  between  them, 
which  had  had  the  leaft  influence  on  the  conduct  of 
either  ?  Is  it  not  perftft'y  aftonifhing,  that  men  of 
learning  and  of  piety,  and  who  claim  the  privilege  ot  be- 
ing thourht  conlifteni,  lliould  not  fee  as  well  -.is  others, 
that  theii  feniimcnts  and  practice  are  totally  at  variance 
»  ith  each  othel'  ?  As  much  as  they  lind  fault  with  our 
particular  >.omir.union,  they  have  neser  yet  been  able 


182 


APPENDIX. 


to  prove  it  inconfiftent  with  our  fentiments  refpecling 
baptifm.  Indeed  many  Psedobaptifts  have  acknov.'l- 
edged,  that  they  thonght  us  entirely  confiftent  in  this 
particiihir. 

3.  We  proceed  to  notice  a  third  confequence  from 
the  pofition  laid  down  by  our  brethren,  i.  e.  That  if 
baptized  perfons  ftand  in  the  fame  relation  to  the 
church  under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  as  circumcifed 
perfons  did  under  the  former  ;  tiiey  are  equally  obliged 
by  the  fame  penalties,  to  attend  the  fublequent  duties 
of  the  gofpel  church,  as  the  others  were  thofe  of  the 
Jewifii. 

Our  meaning  will  be  fully  illuftrated  by  carefully 
attending  to  the  ordinance  of  the  paffover.  The  law 
concerning  it  is  in  the  following  words  ;  And  the  Lord 
/aid  unto  Mofcs  and  Aaron ,  This  is  the  ordinance  of  the 
f>ajj'over  ;  There pall  no  Jlranger  eat  therecfs  but  every  tnan's 
ftrvant  that  is  bought  jar  nionty,  -when  thou  haji  circumcifed 
him,  then  JJyall  he  eat  thereof :  All  the  ccngregcition  of  IJrcul 
fl)all  keep  it  ;  and  tuhen  any  flranger fhall  fojourn  nvith  thee., 
and  tvi/l  keep  the  pnffover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  ht 
circumcifed,  and  then  let  hir^  ccme  near  and  keep  it.* 

Every  circumcifed  perlbn,  who  was  not  prevented  by 
ceremonial  uncleannefs,  or  by  being  abfent,  was  not  only 
permitted,  but  obliged  to  keep  the  paffover,  on  pain  of 
being  cut  o-ff frcin  his  people  :  for  thus  it  is  written  ;  But 
•the  man  that  is  clean,  and  is  not  ia  a  journey^  and  forheareth 
•to  keep  the  paJfiTver,  ewn  that  fame  foulfhnllhe  cut  off  from 
his  people.^ 

Do  our  brethren  confider  all  their  baptized  children 
and  fervants  under  the  fame  obligation  ?  If  fo,  ought 
jnot  mini-llers  tourge  the  duty,  and  heads  of  families  and 
members  of  churches,  to  fee  it  carried  into  effect ;  and  if 
any  wereftubborn,  to  cut  them  off  by  .in  aft  of  excluGon? 
This  would  indeed  eitablifli  infant  communion  to  all 
intents  and  purpof'es ;  but  what  of  that  ?  Can  tlicre  be 
an  inftance  produced,  from  the  hiftory  of  the  Jewilh 
church,  where  a  Itate  of  nonage  or  minority  has  been, 
mentioned  as  a  difqualifying  circumftance  for  commu- 
nion in  the  pafchal  feuft  ?  We  do  not  recoUcdt  any. 


Eiod  xii.  43,  44,  47,  48.  f  Niuiib.  Lx.  13. 


APPENDIX, 


183 


:  law  of  the  pafTover  makes  no  diftinftion  between 
,  uits  and  adults.  To  be  circumcifed,  and  to  be  free 
from  ceremonial  uncleannefs,  were  the  only  conditions 
required. 

Should  any  reply,  that  the  Lord's  fupper  is  a  holy 
ordinance  ;  and  requires,  in  every  recipient,  faith  to 
difcern  the  Lord's  body,  we  readily  grant  it  ;  but 
muft  be  allowed  to  aflc,  is  not  baptifni  a  holy  ordinance 
likewil'e  ?    If  fo,  is  not  a  perfon  who  is  qualified  for 
one,  fit  for  the  other      Do  the  fcriptures  require  dif- 
ferent qualifications  for  the  two  ordinances  ?   The  ar- 
guments which  are  employed  in  behalf  of  infants,  in  or- 
der to  evade  the  fcriptural  requirements  of  faith  and 
rft>entii>ice,  by  Mr.  Edwards,  will  equally  ferve  their 
n  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  fupper.    If  what  is  faid 
.  Iteming  and  repeating  in  order  to  baptifm,  applies 
r,!y  to  adults  ;  the  fame  may  be  faid  with  regard  to 
the  facramental  fupper. 

To  Ihow  that  we  reafon  fairly,  we  will  take  one  of 
his  arguments,  and  only  by  placing  the  Lord's  fupper 
in  the  room  of  baptifm,  it  will  ftanJ  thus,  "  Are  infants 
proper  fubjects  of  the  Lord's  /upper,  or  are  they  not  ? 
It  will  clearly  follow,  that  all  thofe  places  which  relate 
to  believers  can  prove  nothing;  the  reafon  is,  they  have 
no  relation  to  the  queftion."  If  you  pleafe,  take  an- 
other ilatement  from  the  fame  writer.  "  They  (i.  e. 
the  Ijaptifts)  fay  the  fcriptures  recpiire  faith  and  repent- 
ance in  order  to  baptHin.  I  afk,  fays  he,  of  whom  ? 
the  anfwer  muff  be,  of  adults  ;  for  the  fcriptures  never 
require  them  of  infants  in  order  to  an\  ihing."*  Very 
well,  Mr*  Edwards  ;  you  will  have  no  great  difficulty  in 
this  way,  in  getting  them  to  the  communion  table. 
The  want  of  faith  to  difcem  the  Lord's  body,  can  no  more 
be  urged  againft  the  claim  of  infants  to  this  inftitution, 
than  the  want  of  faith  and  repentance  can  be  urged 
againft  their  baptifm.  The  lame  arguments  which 
would  prove  their  right  to  one  inftitution,  Avould  equal- 
ly fupport  their  claim  to  the  other.  The  words  of 
Chrift,  Suffer  little  children  to  coine  unto  me  and  forbid  thtm 
nitf  may  be  applied  with  quite  as  much  propflety'to 


*  Mr.  Edwards,  p.  s,  3,  41. 


184. 


APPENDIX. 


this  inftitution  as  to  baptifm,  and  might  be  addrcfled 
with  as  much  pathos  to  the  tender  feehngs  of  a  parent. 
Let  Mr.  Edwards,  or  any  other  man,  difprove  the  right 
of  infants  to  the  communion  table,  and  we  pledge  our- 
felves  by  the  fame  arguments  to  difprove  their  right  to 
baptifm. 

To  give  additional  force  to  the  preceding  obferva- 
•tions,  let  it  be  rememb  red,  that  infa/it  bnptifm,  and  in- 
font  communion,  make  their  appearance  in  ecclefiaftical 
hirtory  nearly  together. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  James  Pierce,  of  Exon,  about  cigl;ty 
years  ago,  volunteered  his  fervice  in  the  caufe  of  infant 
communi'jt),  as  Dr.  Ofgood  has  lately  done  in  favour  of 
their  baptifm.  Mr.  Pierce  lias  fuftained  the  right  of 
infants  to  the  cucharift  on  the  fame  ground,  and  de- 
fended it  by  the  fame  arguments,  as  modern  Padobap- 
tifts  do  their  right  to  baptifm.  It  will  be  difficult  to 
jhew  wherein  his  arguments  fail  of  being  equally  as 
conclnrive  as  theirs. 

Should  it  be  f.iid  that  there  is  no  mention  made  in 
the  New  Tcftament  of  infant  communion,  the  lame 
may  be  faid  of  infant  baptifm.  It  will  be  equally  in 
vain  to  urge  their  incapacity  to  underftand,  or  to  derive 
fpirit\ial  advantage  from  this  folemn  rite  ;  the  fame  may 
be  ohjecled  to  their  baptifm.  That  tlie  eucharift  was 
given  to  feme  who  were"  called  infants,  towards  the 
clofe  of  the  third  century,  we  have  the  authority  of 
Dr.  Moll.eim.*  It  is  not  certain,  however,  that  thcfc 
iiifiinis  were  hahts.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  cuUom 
at  this  time  to  call  all  minors  infants.  It  is  evident 
beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  infants  whole  baptifm  Tertul- 
lian  oppofed,  were  not  babes,  but  probably  children  of 
fcven  or  eight  years  old.  iiuch  as  were  capable  of 
*'  aiking  to  lie  baptized,"  but  fuch  as,  in  his  judgment, 
vere  not  fufliclently  enlightened  and  cftablilncd  in  the 
doctrine  of  Chrlft.  His  words  are  thus  rendered  ; 
««  The  condefcenfion  of  God  may  confer  his  favours  as 
lie  pleafes  ;  but  our  wiflies  may  miflead  ourfclves  and 
others.  It  is  therefore  moft  expedient  to  Hefer  bap- 
tifm, and  to  regulate  the  adminiftration  of  it,  according 


«  fccLHift.  Vol  I.  p.  a8j. 


APPENDIX. 


185 


to  the  dirpofition,  and  the  age  of  the  perfons  to  be  bap- 
tixed  :  (prscipue  tamen  circa  parvulos)  and  efpeci.iliy  in 
the  cafe  of  little  cms."*  The  general  tenor  of  his  reafon- 
ing  obliges  us  to  underft.unl  him  in  this  light.  This 
will  appear  lefs  lingular  when  we  conlider  that  he  had 
been  in  the  praiuce  of  the  law,  before  he  became  a 
teacher  of  religion.  That  minors  are  frequently  called 
infants  in  law,  will  appear  by  a  quotation  from  judge 
Blackftone  :  "  Infancy,  "  fays  he,"  is  nonage,  wiiich  is 
a  defect  of  the  underftamling.  Infants  under  the  age 
of  difcretion  ought  not  to  be  punilbed  by  any  criminal 
profecution  whatever.  What  the  age  of  difcretion  is, 
in  various  nations,  is  matter  of  fome  variety."f 

It  matters  not,  however,  in  the  prefent  argument, 
whether  thei'e  infants  were  mere  bahcs,  or  children  who 
were  old  enough  to  aik  for  baptifm.  It  is  evident  that 
infant  communion  commenced  nearly  if  not  exactly  at 
the  fame  time  that  infant  baptifm  did.  Dr.  Wall 
makes  this  acknowledgment,  when  fpeaking  of  giving 
the  communion  to  infants.  "  Very  near  half  the  Chrif- 
tians  in  the  world  do  ftill  continue  that  practice.  The 
Greek  church,  the  Arwemans,  the  Marotiitfs,  the  Cophti, 
the  Abajfmsy  the  Mufcovites,  &c.  ; — and  fo,  for  aught  I 
know,  do  all  the  reft  of  the  eaftern  Chriilians."|  The 
Doctor  further  acknowledges,  that  this  cuftom  prevailed 
in  St.  Auitin's  time,  who  commenced  his  miniftry  in  the 
year  391,  (about  as  early  as  we  have  any  authentic  ac- 
count of  infant  baptifm) — I'hat  it  continued  in  the 
weftern  church  for  fix  hundred  years — "  Tliat  the 
Roman  church,  about  the  year  one  thoufand,  entert. lin- 
ing the  doctrine  of  traufubftaniiation,  let  fall  the  cuftom 
of  giving  the  holy  elements  to  infants  ;  and  the  other 
ivejltrn  churches,  moftly  following  their  example,  did  the 
like  upon  the  fame  account.  But  that  the  Greeks,  not 
having  the  faid  doctrine,  continued,  and  do  ftill  con- 
tinue, the  cuftom  of  communicating  infants."§ 

*  Parv.lui,  the  word  ufcd  by  Teriuilian,  is  of  yague  figtiificatlcn. 
It  is  uot  i;i.:tlILrily,»nd  in  Ua^  cafc  cuo  by  uo  aiCaOa  be,  confioid  lu  ah 

f  Comment  Bock  iv.  Chap.  Li. 
\  Hift.  of  iufaut  b5p;.lfnD,  p.  317. 
S  Ibid. . 
S 


186  APPENDIX. 


As  the  preceding  quotations  refer  us  back  to  Atw^ 
tin,*  we  think  it  beft  to  give  our  readers  his  fenrlmeots 
upon  the  fubjedl  in  his  own  words.  It  appears  that 
from  a  miftaken  view  of  thofe  words  of  Ciirift,  John 
iii.  5>  Eiuept  a  man  be  bortt  of  nvattr  and  of  the  Spirit 
he  cannot  eiit£r  hiio  the  kbig/iom  of  God  ;  he,  with  many 
others,  inferred  the  neccffity  of  baptizing  infams  in 
order  to  their  falvataoQ.  The  fan^e  erroneous  couftruc- 
tion  of  John  vi.  oS.  Except  ye  eat  the  fiefj  (f  the  Sm  of 
Man,  and  dri/tk  hu  blood,  ye  have  tio  lif£  in  ycu  ;  led  him 
with  much  zeal  to  plead  for  the  admiffion  of  infants 
to  tiae  Lord's  table.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  his 
words  are,  "  Let  us  hear  th'e  Lord,  I  fay,  not  ind«e«d 
fpeaking  this  of  the  holy  laver,  but  of  the  facranient  of 
the  holy  table,  (whither  none  rigktly  come  UNtEss 
BApyizEU)  Except  ye  eat  my  f«/hy  and  drink  my  bloody  ye 
fbail  have  no  life  in  yotu  What  do  you  feek  for  forther  ? 
What  can  be  faid  in  anfwer  to  this,  unlefe  one  would 
fet  hirafelf  again  ft  clear  aiad  inTi«cible  truth  ?  Will 
any  one  dare  to  fay  this,  that  thi«  pafFagc  does  not  be* 
long  to  infants  ;  and  that  they  can  have  life  in  them* 
felves  without  partaking  of  his  body  and  blood  ?"  And 
th«  necefiity  of  this,  as  well  as  of  baptifm  to  eteniai 
life,  he  fays,  the  African  Chriftians  took  to  be  an  ao- 
cient  and  apoftolic  tradition, f  Tliey  did  not  pretend 
that  either  of  them  v/ere  in  the  Bible. 

It  will  be  afkod,  how  came  infant  communion  to  be 
laid  aiide,  after  its  having  travelled  hand  in  hand  with 
hifant  baptifa  for  fo  many  centuries  ?  The  reafon 
affigned  by  Br.  Wall  is,'  the  admiffion  of  tbat  ghoftly 
do^Si  ine  of  tranfuhfantiation.  We  are  at  a  lofs  how 
this  fiiould  afFe<5t  it  ;  unlels  by  this  foppofed  change  of 
the  ©len^nts,  they  thought  them  too  to  be  trifled 
whh  in  this  way. 

That  thefe  little  Chriftians,  who  had  not  yet  been 
drawn  from  the  brcafl,  nor  learnt  doBriMe^  itiight  not  rofuf* 
the  elements  when  offered,  the  following  rule  was  eftab- 
lirtjed ;  "  Care,"  fay  th^7,  «  is  to  be  taken  concepning 
infants,  that  they  ftiOuid  ftot  without  the  utmofl  uc- 

*  Auguftine,but    often  called  Aufioib 
f  Ep.  1 06.  Sonifacio,  eontr.  Pelag. 


APPENDIX 


187 


•etity  receive  any  food  or  fudi  after  th«y  are  baptized, 
before  they  communicate  in  the  facrament  of  our 
Lord's  body."* 

h  will  require  much  ingenuity  to  maintain  the  right 
of  infants  to  member(hip  in  the  gofpel  church  on  the 
footing  of  circunicifion,  and  not  admit  all  the  confe- 
quences  above  rtated.    For  ourfelves,  we  fee  no  way  to 
j  embrace  one,  without  admitting  the  other  :  and  to  ad- 
1  mit  either,  appears  to  us  to  be  fubverfive  of  the  great 
I  defign  of  the  gofpel,  which  was  to  form  a  church,  diC- 
I  tinft  from  the  world.    But  if  infant  baptifm  brings 
I  them  into  the  church,  it  totally  deftroys  that  diftinftion, 
i  and  blends  the  world  and  church  together.    This  idea 
!  will  be  more  particularly  confidered  in  its  proper  place. 
As  our  Pxdobaptift  l»ethren  lay  fo  much  ftrefs  upon 
this  part  of  the  fubjecV,  we  muft  be  allowed  to  view  it 
gn  all  lides. 

Could  we  be  brought  with  them  to  conllder  the  in^^ 
fant  offspring  of  Gentile  believers,  as  ftanding  in  the 
fame  covenant  relation  to  God  as  the  natural  feed  of 
Abraham  did,  yet  ftill  we  fee  nothing,  either  in  the 
old  or  new  law,  which  would  authorize  their  baptifm. 
An  article  every  way  fo  different  as  baptifm  is  from  cir- 
cumcifion,  feems  not  to  be  fufficiently  fupported  by 
mere  inference,  but  needs  the  firm  bafis  of  plain  pofi- 
tive  infiitution  to  reft  upon.  To  infer  the  right  of  in- 
fants to  baptifm  from  the  covenant  of  circumcifion, 
appears  to  us  extremely  forced  and  unnatural.  Some 
of  the  difficulties  that  an  inference  of  this  kind  labours 
under,  are  the  following  : 

1 .  The  law  of  circumcilion  was  a  pofitive  law,  not 
at  all  dependent  on  the  nature  and  fitnefs  of  things  : 
hence  every  thing  which  related  to  the  inftitute,  de- 
pended on  the  exprefs  declaration  of  ihe  inftitutor. 
This  is  precifely  the  cafe  with  baptifm  ;  therefore  theM 
can  be  no  arguing  from  one  to  the  other. 

2.  The  inftitution  of  circumcifion  was  exprefsly  lim- 
ited to  males.  Females,  though  defcending  from  the 
fame  parents,  were  not  fubje£ls  of  the  token  of  that  cov- 


'  *  Ordo  Roftianus  Tit.  de  Bipt.  in  Piirre. 


1S8 


APPENDIX. 


enant  :  but  the  baptifmal  inftitution  includes  botk 
men  and  women. 

5.  The  law  of  circumcifion  required  no  previous 
prpfeffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  neither  in  adults  nor 
infants,  as  a  qualification  for  that  infi:itution  :  but  the 
gofpel  pofitively  requires  fuch  a  profeflion  in  order  to 
baptifm,  without  even  an  exception  in  favour  of  in- 
fants. 

4.  A  male  flave  bought  with  money  of  an  ageabote 
eight  days,  whether  a  believer  or  an  infidel,  whether  an 
idolater  or  an  atheift,  had  the  fame  right  to  circumcif- 
ion as  the  infant  feed  of  his  mafi:er  had.  The  gofpel 
inftitution  makes  no  provifion  for  flaves  until  they  are 
made  free  h\  the  Son  ;  and  then  it  requires,  as  a  pre-re- 
quifite  to  baptifm,  the  fame  public  profeflion  of  them  as 
of  their  believing  mafters. 

5  The  rite  itfelf  is  fo  very  unlike  the  gofpel  inflitute, 
that  it  appears  extremely  unnatural  to  infer  one  from  the 
other.  Circumcifion  was  a  painful  bloody  rite,  per- 
formed by  cutting  the  flefh  of  a  particular  part, "(which 
delicrxy  forbids  us  to  name.)  Baptifm  is  an  immerfion, 
or  -^valhing  of  the  whole  body  in  pure  water. 

6.  Circumcifion  might  be  lawfully  adminiftered  by 
ativ  perfon,  at  leaft  by  any  head  of  a  family,  whether 
mala  or  female.*  Baptifm  is  to  be  adminifi^ered  by 
particu'ar  ofiicers  in  the  Chriftian  church,  called  and 
qualified  for  the  work. 

Other  difllmilarities  might  be  urged,  but  thefe  are 
thought  fuflicient  to  (hew,  that  it  Is  not  the  eafiefi:  thing 
in  the  world  to  infer  baptifm  from  circumcifion.  It 
certainly  requires  a  large  ftock  of  myftical  jcfuitical  in- 
genuity, to  make  an  inference  appear  plaufible,  where 
the  nature,  aft,  and  defign  are  lo  diflx-rent.  If  infants 
are  to  be  baptized,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  the  infti- 
tution  makes  ample  provifion  for  them,  without  fubjeft- 
ing  us  to  the  perplexity  of  tracing  it  out  from  an  anti- 
quated Jewilh  rite. 

Paidobaptifts,  when  they  reafon  with  one  another, 
and  are  not  fufpicious  that  the  Baptifts  are  watching  to 

*  Zipporah  clrcumcifed  the  two  fons  of  Mofes  with  a  fharp  flone. 
Midwives  have  frequently  adminiftered  baptilni,  that  is,  fpriokling,  la 
dyirg  Infant*.    Vid.  Robinloa'*  Hift  of  Bap. 


APPENDIX. 


189 


take  advantage  of  their  conceflions,  reafon  juft  as  we 
(\o.  This  remark  will  be  eftabliihed  by  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Emmons's  Diflertation  on  the  qualifications 
for  the  Chriftian  facraments,  &c.  againft  Dr.  Hem- 
nionway.  AVc  think  the  whole  work  worthy  a  can- 
did perufal,  but  can  only  feledt  a  part  of  one  of  his  ar- 
guments. "  Dr.  Hemmenway,"  fwys  he,  has  followed 
other  writers  in  arguing  from  the  former  difpenfations 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  the  prefcnt,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  prove  what  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  are, 
under  the  prefcnt  dxfpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
from  what  they  were  under  its  former  difi)enfations. 
But  this  mode  of  reafoning  is  by  no  means  conclu- 
Iive.  It  was  the  duty  of  believers  under  former  dif- 
penfations of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  offer  facrilices  ; 
but  can  we  hence  infer  that  it  is  their  duty  now  ?  It 
was  the  duty  of  believers  under  former  difpenfations 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  circumcife  their  children 
and  aitend  the  paflbver  ;  but  does  it  hence  follow  that 
thofe  iiuties  are  ftill  binding  Or  can  we  juftly  con- 
clude, that  it  is  the  duty  of  believers  now  to  circumcife 
their  children,  or  even  to  baptize  them,  becaufe  h-iv.is 
onct  their  duty  to  circumcife  them  .''  The  truth  is,  we 
muft  learn  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  under  the  pref- 
ent  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  from  the  dif- 
penfation  itfelf,  which  enjoins  all  thu  peculiar  du- 
ties WHICH  BiLLONG  TO  IT.  If  believers  are  to  l)aptize 
their  children,  as  they  undoubtedly  are,  it  is  not  becaufe 
they  were  once  obliged  to  circumcife  them."  "The 
Chriftian  difpenfation,  which  is  allowed-to  be  the  frecft 
from  types  and  ligures,  plainly  fpeaks  for  itfelf.  And 
-we  ought  to  look  into  the  clear  difpenfation  of  the  gof- 
pel,  in  order  todifcijver  the  peculiiir  duties  of  believers, 
at  the  prefent  day."*  Would  it  not  be  a  higii  r.?fleftion 
upon  Dr.  Emmoiis's  confiffency,  to  fuppole,  after  fuch 
an  explicit,  candid,  antl  rational  ftatenient,  he  would  ever 
attempt  to  prove  infant  baptifm  from  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion,  or  from  any  thing  elfe  but  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  ?  Whether  he  has,  or  has  not,  we  leave  thoie  who 
are  acquainted  with  his  writings  to  determine.  Ouf 


•  Diir.  chap  ii.  fcA.  V. 
S  2 


190 


APPENDIX 


thingj  however,  vve  muft  bepermitteJ  to  fay,  We  vfr\]j 
believe  that  could  tlie  Dottor,  with  an  unprfjudjc^d 
mind,  admit  thp  f»ir  conclufioa  which  muft  arile  iropy 
his  own  reafoning,  it  would  inevitably  bring  hitu  \o 
believers'  baptifm,  or  leave  him  in  corpplete  iiwonfif- 
tency  ! 

Having  carefully  examined  every  article  in  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion,  and  traced  fome  of  the  copfe- 
quences  which  muft  follow  on  admitting  its  «ippli9ati<?n 
to  the  pr.efent  ftate  of  (he  Chrillian  church,  we  think 
it  is  deraonftrably  plain,  that  its  firft  ?nd  imrnediate 
promifes  and  requirements  r^fpefled  th^  poflerity  ^f 
Abraham  ;  that  it  has  at  malt,  only  ^  typical  r^f^ren^e 
to  the  gofpel  Gentile  church  ;  and  tha^  ^v^n  this  typ- 
ical relation,  like  all  other  types,  ought  to  be  applied 
with  great  caution  and  circunifpeftion.  It  is  worthy  qf 
obfervation,  that  types  and  the  things  that  are  repr^- 
fented  by  th^m,  aHhough  ther^  ii  C?n^e  \ii5;euef^  9re 
always  diftinft. 

The  promifes  which  were  irifide  to  Abrgh^^Bi  ?efpe^- 
ing  the  Gentiles,  that  /«  A/w,  and  in  his  feedy  all  the  na- 
tions or  famihes  of  the  earth  fhpuld  be  bleffed^  w^^ 
neither  expreffed  nor  included  in  the  cQvenant  of  cif* 
^umcifion  'f  but  were  entirely  ^iftin^j  and  independent 
of  it.  It  ought  nev«r  to  be  forgotten  by  all  who  ?ttpn4 
to  this  controverfy,  that  the  gr?at  promif(?  which  Gp(l 
ii-vade  to  Abraham,  and  which  is  fo  much  cont^ndecj  fpr> 
vas  made  twenty-tfour  years  before  the  covenant  of  c^r- 
tumcifion  ;*  and  was  renewed  about  twenty  years  a^- 
ter  ;t  mentioned  in  the  whple  of  that  tranfaftipr^ 

The  promile  to  Abrahaip,  th^  in  l;iipi  all  tbt; families  if  tbf 
earth Jfjould  be  bUfed^  was  predicate(J,  we  humbly  con^eiv?,. 
pn  the  covenant  of  red^mptipn,  confirmed  befure  of  Hqd^ 
iti  Chrifi  4  and  was  ratified  by  the  fplemuity  of 
oath,  which  woyld  have  carried  it  into  <;omplete  qffe(\, 
had  the  covenant  of  cirqurocifton  never  <?x,ifte4.  Tb* 
fjurther  illuftration  *nd  propf  of  wh^t  we  hay?  now 
ferted,  will  be  referved  for  anotlier  pwt  pf  thM*  wOTfe* 


APPENDIX. 


191 


SECTION  III. 

H^hnther  tht  JcLvip  and  ChAJiian  Churches  are  iht  fun**. 
Or  nvhether  tht  latter  is  a  dijiincl  Church  ^  o*-  a  mere  can- 
tittuaibn  cf  the  foruur,  anftdered. 

entire  filence  of  the  New  Teftament  with 
refpect  to  the  baptiftn  of  babes,  has  led  its  advocates  ta 
.trace  its  origin  back  to  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
Their  arguments  iaiplicitlv  tell  us,  that  they  do  not 
wifh  to  hazard  its  defence  upon  the  footing  of  its 
being  an  inftitution  of  the  gofpel  but  choofe  rath- 
er to  confider  it  as  a  right  eftablifhed  and  fecured 
to  infants,  under  the  former  difpenfation.  That  the 
male  infants  of  the  Jews  were  circumcifed,  conformably 
to  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  their 
anceftor,  recorded  in  the  xviith  chapter  of  Genefis> 
no  one  can  difpute  who  reads  the  writings  of  Mofes. 
Were  it  equally  plain  from  the  writings  of  the  evangelift* 
and  apoftles,  that  infants  were  baptised,  the  difpute 
would  beat  an  end>  But  of  the  latter,  no  proof  can  be 
found  !  Who  then  can  wonder,  that  the  friends  of  in- 
fant memberftiip  fhould  not  be  willing  to  let  go  a 
certainty,  for  an  uncertainty." 

But  in^  order  to  fupport  the  foregoing  hypothefis,  the 

fofpel  church  alfo  muft  be  judaized  v  that  is,  it  muft 
e  completely  incorporated  with  the  old  Jewifh  church> 
infant  baptifm,  after  all,  rauft  languilh  for  want  ctf 
^Ivine  inftitution  to  fupport  it.  Whether  fuch  an  at.- 
t?rapt  does  not  refemble  the  conduct  of  thofe  judaizing 
teachers,  whom  St.  Paul  in  his  epiftles  to  the  Galatians, 
PhiUppians,  and  others  fo  feverely  reprehended,  ought 
fgrioufly  to  be  confidered.  To  foroe  it  has  this  afpeft. 
Cir<;umcilion  was.  the  theme  on  which  they  perpetually 
dwelt.  And  certain  men,  fays  the  hiftorian,  which  came 
down  from  Judea,  (to  Antioch),  taught  the  brethren  and 
fitidi  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  mtinner  of  Mofes,  ye 
cannot  be  faved.  Alfo,  there  rofe  up  certain  of  the  feEl  of  the 
Pbarifees  ivkich  ir/iev  ed,  faying^  That  it  ivas  needful  to  cir- 


APPENDIX 


eumriji  theniy  and  to  conwiand  them  to  keep  the  laiu  cf 
Mofes* 

That  our  Psedobaptift  brethren  conlider  the  gofpel 
church  only  as  the  Jewifh  church  continued,  and  not 
as  commencing  under  the  miniflry  of  Jefus  Chrift,  or 
his  immediate  forerunner,  is  clear  from  all  their  writ- 
ings. That  it  may  be  feen  that  we  ftate  the  rubie(Si:  fairly, 
we  fubjoin  the  following  quotations.  Mr.  P.  Ed-wards  : 
**  The  firft  Gentiles,  of  whofe  calling  we  read,  are  faid 
to  have  been  added  to  the  church  ;  but  there  was  no 
church  exifting  to  which  they  could  be  added  but  the 
atic'unt  Jeivi/h  church,  of  which  all  the  apoftles  and  dif- 
ciples  Gl  our  Lord  were  members."!  Mr.  S.  WcrccJIer  : 
'♦•  Though  a  new  and  brighter  difpenfatlon  was  intro- 
duced, yet  the  church  cotitiriued  the  fame,  which  had  almoft 
two  thoufand  years  before  been  cftablilhed  by  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham  and  his  feed."  "  Circum- 
cifion  was  formerly  the  appointed  pre-requifite  of  ad- 
miffion  to  the  church  of  God,  baptifm  is  now  the  ap- 
pointed pre-rcquifitc  of  admiffion  to  the  fame  church  "X 
Thefe  gentlemen  are  quoted  as  a  fpecimen  of  the  com- 
mon manner  in  which  they  ftate  the  fubjedl,  rather  than 
to  prove  a  point  which  it  is  prefumed  no  one  will  deny. 

"We  will  now  proceed  to  compare  thefe  two  churches, 
and  fliew  fome  of  the  points  in  which  they  difagree. 

I.     They  differ  iffet.t tally  in  their  conjlitutious . 

By  the  conftitution  of  the  JewiHi  church,  we  may  un- 
derftand  thofe  priihary  laws  by  which  they  were  united 
and  diftinguifhed  as  an  ecclefiaftical  body.  Thefe 
laws  contain  a  declaration  of  the  righis  and  privileges, 
the  duties  and  obligations  of  all  the  members  ;  and  alfo 
the  qualifications  which  conftitute  the  right  of  meni- 
berlhip  Circumcifion  holds  the  firft  and  moft  im- 
portant place  in  this  lyftem.  This  formed  the  difcrim- 
inating  fine  between  the  members  of  this  church  and 
all  others.  It  was  the  initiating  badge  of  niemberfl.ip  \ 
for  no  male  of  the  feed  of  Abraham,  nor  any  others, 

*  Ads  XV.  I,  ^. 

t  Candid  Reafons,  &c.  p.  54. 
}  Two  Difc.  p.  48,  /3,  J4- 


APPENDIX. 


193 


could  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  that  church 
without  it. 

The  qiieftion  now  to  be  determined,  is,  whether  the 
qu.iHfications  for  this  rite  were  precifely  the  fame,  or 
even  the  fame  in  iubftance,  as  thofe  required  in  order 
to  memberfhip  in  the  gofpel  church  ?  Abraham  was 
the  firft  that  adminiilered  circumcifion  under  the  for- 
mer difpenfation.  John,  the  forfruniicr  of  Chrift,  was 
tlio  firft  who  adminiftered  baptifm  under  the  new  dif- 
penfation. Abraham  circumcifed  Iflimael,  and  all  the 
men  of  his  houfe,  in  the  felf-fame  day.  Khmael  was  at 
time  thirteen  years  old.  This  is  an  age  lufceptible 
of  religious  infiru'Ilion,  and  when  its  influence  on  the 
moral  temper  can  be  fatisfadlorily  afcorrained.  Nothing 
appearo  in  the  whole  account  to  juftify  an  opinion,  that 
lihmael  was  now  a  penitent  (whatever  he  might  be  after- 
wards) and  from  tliat  conduft,  which  led  to  his  expul- 
fion  from  Abraham's  family,  we  have  much  reafon  to 
believe  the  contrary.*  Nor  is  there  any  more  evidence 
that  the  men  of  Abraham's  houfe  were  penitents,  than 
that  Illimael  was.  Neither  can  we  find  any  evidence, 
that  the  inftitution  required  it  in  order  to  qualify  them 
for  circumcifion.  On  this  fubje£V,  fo  necelTary  to  fup- 
port  the  pofition,  that  the  Jewilh  and  the  Chriftlan 
churches  are  tlie  fame,  the  fcriptures  prcferve  a  pro- 
found iilcnce  !  To  qualify  a  perfon  completely  for  cir- 
cumcifion, nothing  more  was  required,  either  in  aiiults 
or  infants,  than  that  they  were  defcendants  from  Abra- 
ham, or  were  Jewi(h  property,  having  been  bought  with 
money.  Can  any  man  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand  con- 
fcienrioufly  fay,  that  he  verily  believes  thefe  qualifica- 
tions the  fame  which  were  required  in  order  to  baptifm 
either  by  John  the  Baptift,  by  Jefus  Chrift,  or  by  the 
apoftlcs  .'' 

As  if  exprefsly  defigned  to  convince  us  of  this  differ- 
ence in  the  outfet,  the  harbinger  of  our  Saviour  who 
was  fcnt  to  introduce  his  new  difpenfation,  and  to  mani- 
fert  him  to  Ifrael  as  xUsLainb  ofGjd  luho  taketh  aivav  thejtn 
of  the  nvorldy  has  made  the  very  diftinftion  for  which  we 
plead.  Bui  when  he J'l.iu  many  of  the  Pharifees  at:d  SadJucets 


Gen  ni  9. 


194 


APPENDIX. 


nme  to  his  laptifm,  be  /aid  unto  tbentyO  generation  of  viperjf 
ivho  hath  luarned  you  to fieefrom  the  wrath  to  come  ?  Bring 
firth  therefore  fruits  mett  for  repentance  ;  and  think  not  to 
fay  tuithin yourfelves,  we  have  Abraham  to  OUR  Father  : 
fjr  I  fay  unto  you,  God  is  ahle  of  thefe  flones^  to  raife  up  chil- 
dren unto  Abraham.*  Who  were  thefe  Pharifees  and 
Sadducees  ?  Were  they  heathens  ?  No  ;  they  were 
members  of  the  Jewifh  church,  and  in  full  communion, 
for  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary.  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father.  This  was  the  very  ground  on  which 
their  memberfliip  in  that  church  refted,  and  which  hadi 
never  before  been  difputed.  But  John  demanded  qual-i 
ifications  of  a  much  higher  nature,  and  every  way  dif.» 
ferent  in  a  moral  view,  from  thofe  which  had  beforCj 
been  allowed.  In  the  true  fpirit  of  a  gofpel  teacher,, 
he  required  the  genuine  fruits  of  repentance.  And 
thofe  who  did  not  bring  forth  thefe  fruits,  and  fubmi*. 
to  this  new  inftitution,  Chrift  himfelf  has  denounced,' 
as  rejecting  the  counsel  of  God  againfl  themfehesy  in  nUt. 
ieing  baptized  of  him.  f 

The  different  qualifications  required  by  the  initiatii^, 
inftitutes  of  the  two  churches,  clearly  defignate  the  dif- 
ferent character  of  the  members.  To  conftitute  a  per- 
fon  a  complete  member  of  the  Jewlfti  church,  required 
nothing  more  than  to  be  bought  with  Jewilh  money, 
or  born  of  Jewifli  parents,  and  to  be  circumcifed.  To 
conftitute  a  perfon  a  proper  memberof  the  gofpel  church, 
he  muft  indeed  be  bought  with  a  price  >  but  not  with  fd- 
ver  and  gold,  and  fuch  corruptible  things.,  btii  with  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  of  a  lamb  without  bhtn- 
i/h  !  And  whether  born  of  Jevvifli  parents  or  others, 
is  of  no  confequence  ;  he  muji  be  born  again,  not  of  bloody 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  Jlifb,  nor  of  the  will  cf  man^  but  4f 
God-X  He  muft  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  or  be, 
can  never  be  confidered  as  duly  qualified  to  enter  the 
go/pel  kingdom,  or  church.  This  plain  ft<Kement  inevi- 
tably brings  the  mind  to  this  conclufion  That  unlefs  to 
be  bought  witli  money  to  be  a  fewi/h  fervant,  and  to  be 
bought  with  the  precious  blood  of  Chrift  to  be  his  free 
tnen,  are  precifely  the  fame  things ;  and  to  be  born  of 

♦  Matt.  iii.  7 — 9.        t  Luke  vii.  30.        \  J«lin  i  13,  &c. 


APPENDIX. 


Jx?\ri{h  parents,  according  to  the  flefti,  and  to  he  bom 
Iff  Gad  bj-  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  hare  the 
fame  meaning  ;  then  the  moral  charafter  of  the  meitt- 
bers,  as  req-uired  hj  the  two  infHtutes,  aioii  be  ac- 
knowledged to  be  totally  difl^^^ent. 

We  do  not  think  ourfelves  hound  to  prore,  that 
there  is  no  fimilarity,  no  points  of  agreement  between 
die  two  churches  ;  it  is  fufficient  to  oar  purpofe  to 
riuow,  that  they  differ  fo  efTentially  that  they  cannot 
be  conildered  as  one  and  the  fame.  To  fhow  the  dif» 
ference  between  two  men,  it  would  ntjt  be  ueceflary  to 
prove,  that  one  walked  on  two  legs,  and  the  other  apoa 
four  :  although  they  might  bear  a  coniiderable  refem<» 
blance  to  each  other,  yet  there  would  be  vifible  points 
of  diflBrence,  fuiiicient  to  ftiow  tliat  they  were  not  ore. 

2.  Qur  fecond  argument  is  taken  from  the  a£hial 
difterence  in  the  vifible  form  of  tlie  two  clim-ches. 
The  Jewiili  cbitfch,  in  erery  ftage  of  it,  has  been  na* 
tional.  The  gofpel  church  is  felefted  and  particular. 
The  former  in  its  conflitution  had  a  direct  tendency  to 
form  and  e&ibhfli  a  mixed  church  ;  to  blend  believers 
and  umbelievers,  faints  and  finners,  tlie  vinruous  and 
iricious  together  in  one  general  commonion  ;  witlioat 
containing  in  iifelf  the  means  of  feparating  the  nior* 
ally  clean  firom  the  unclean. 

The  plan  of  the  gofp^^l  chtirch  is  totally  different. 
This  is  corapofed  of  none  but  profefEng  believers.  A 
pcopie  chcft-n,  and  called  cut  from  the  world.  Not  dif-- 
tingui^hed  indeed  by  family  defccnt,  or  any  mark  hi  tht 
fitjh  ;  but  by  having  the  truth  engraved  upon  their  hmrU 
by  the  SfArii  of  the  living  God,  by  which  means  they  be* 
come  Irwjig  epifiles,  htjo'wn  and  read  of  all  men, 

Mr.  Edwards  has  denied  that  the  Jewifli  church  was 
national  during  the  firft  three  or  four  centuries  from  its 
commencement.  But  wliat  reafon  does  he  affign  for 
it  }  Why  becaufe  "  it  had  no  levitical  priefthood,  no 
inilritution  of  tythes,  &c."  (p.  104.)  The  reader  will 
remember  that  we  are  not  diQjuting  about  the  inftitu- 
tion  of  the  priefthood  nor  tytlies,  but  about  member- 
fliip-  If  the  Jewifli  nation  did  not  commence  its  ex- 
iilanoe  in  the  factiiLy  of  Abraliam  as  cealljt  as  the  l&mSk. 


196 


APPENDIX. 


church,  we  acknowledge  our  argument  will  be  weak- 
ened ;  but  if  it  did,  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  foph- 
iftry  to  overthrow  it. 

During  the  above  period,  this  nation  and  church 
■were  both  in  their  infancy,  and  both  progrefled  in  the 
fame  ratio.  The  queftion  then  does  not  depend  on 
the  numbers  which  compofed  either  the  nation,  or 
church,  but  whether  the  one  was  co-exiftent  and  co- 
extenfive  with  the  other  ?  Can  this  be  denied  in  any 
ftate  of  that  nation  ?  Does  not  the  bible  eflablifh  the 
fa(St  in  the  cleareft  manner  ?  To  fuppofe  that  this 
church  was  not  national  merely  becaufe  it  had  no  '<  in- 
jlituted  priefthood  or  tythes,"  would  be  equally  as 
abfurd  as  to  fuppofe,  that  the  nation  did  not  exift,  until 
it  exifted  in  its  kingly  form  in  the  days  of  Saul.  In  fadt, 
if  the  Jewiih  church  did  not  exift  in  its  national  form 
until  the  days  of  Mofes,  it  did  not  exift  in  any  regular 
vifible  form  whatever.  View  it  in  every  poffible  light, 
from  the  eftablirtiment  of  circumcifion,  until  the  gofpel 
church  iucceeded  it,  and  you  will  find  that  it  com- 
prifed  the  whole  body  of  the  Hebrew  or  Jevnfli  nation. 
We  know  of  nothing  which  can  denominate  a  church 
as  being  national,  but  its  comprifing  the  nation  at  large, 
and  its  religious  ritos  enforced  by  national  authority. 
Such  we  underftand  the  Jewiih  to  have  been. 

To  determine  whether  the  gofpel  church  does  not 
eflentially  differ  in  its  viiible  form  from  the  preceding, 
we  fliall  confult  only  the  New  Teftament.  It  matters 
not  to  us  what  forms  have  been  eftablifhed  at  Rome  or 
Conftantinople,  at  Geneva  or  in  Great  Britain,  The 
New  Teftament  alone  muft  determine  us  in  our  prefent 
inquiries.  Here  nothing  can  be  found  which  looks  like 
a  national  church.  The  gofpel,  though  firft  fent  to  the 
Jews,  was  far  from  being  generally  received.  Chrift  came 
unto  his  oivn,  i.  e.  to  his  own  nation,  and  his  own  received 
him  not  :  but  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  Jons  of  God  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name.  Of  thefe  Jewifh  believers  the  gofpel 
church  was  compofed  ;  and  to  thefe  the  converts  from 
among  the  Gentiles  were  added.  The  great  body  of  the 
Jewiih  church,  notwithftanding  the  gofpel  was  preached 


APPENDaX. 


197 


them  attended  with  miracl(?s,  adhered  to  their 
I'.tiorval  religion,  and  perfecuted  Jelus  of  Nazareth 
impoftor.    In  tliis  particular,  I  am  happy  enough 
>;nce  to  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards  :  Ipeaking  of  th.j 
pco.  le  he  fa^s,      As  to  their  charailler,  it  is  certain 
th.\t,  a  few  only  excepted,  they  were  upon  the  whole, 
the  DEADLY  ENEMIES  cf  Chrift  and  his  dovTtrine."  (p. 

It  has  never  yet  been  proved,  nor  do  we  believe  It 
can  be  fairly  inferred,  from  any  thing  recorded  in  the 
New  Tertament,  that  ever  a  lingle  perfon  was  confid- 
c  rcd  as  a  member  of  the  Chriftian  church,  who  did  not 
profefs  faith  in  Jelus  Chrlft.  The  account  given  us  in 
the  fecond  chapter  of  Acts  is  plain,  and  eafy  to  be  un- 
derftood.  The  gcfpel  was  faithfully  preached  by  Peter  ; 
tiie  confciences  of  his  hearers  were  folemniy  addreffed  j 
the  Holy  Ghoft  accompanied  the  word  in  fuch  a  man- 
ner, that  it  is  faiu,  Then  ihey  that  gladly  received  his  luord 
ivern  baptized  ;  and  the  Janie  day  there  ivere  addc-d  unto  thent 
about  three  thcufand fiuls.  No  more  were  baptized,  nof 
were  any  added  to  the  church  but  fuch  as  gladly  re- 
ceived the  word.  A  careful  attention  to  the  remaining 
part  of  this  chapter  will  convince  any  one,  that  thefe 
pcrfons  were  in  general  real  beUevers.  The  account 
tlofes  with  thefe  remarkable  words  ;  And  the  Lord 
added  to  the  church  dai/y,  such  AS  SHOULD  BE  SAVED. 
From  this  laft  remark  there  is  abundant  evidence,  that 
in  a  judgment  of  charity,  they  were  true  believers. 
Probably  a  large  (iroporcion  of  the  three  thoufands 
were  heads  of  families  ;  yet  there  is  no  mention  mad« 
of  their  children  or  fervants  being  baptized,  according 
to  the  right  of  memberBiip  for  which  our  brethren  plead. 

The  particular  mode  of  addrefs  adopted  by  St  Paul 
to  the  leveral  churches  to  which  he  wrote,  naturally 
leads  to  the  conclufion,  that  they  were  compofed  only 
of  vifible  faints,  or  fuch  as  profelTed  to  believe  in,  and 
love  Chrift.  His  language  is,  To  ali  that  be  in  Rone, 
BELOVED  OF  God,  call,ed  to  s&\hts,  grace  to  you, 
and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  the  L'jrd  Jefus  Chr'ifi. 
Umo  the  church  of  Gcd  ivhich  is  at  Ccrtnthy  to  them  thai 
mre  SANCTiyiED  in    Christ   Jesus,  called  to  be 


T 


198 


APPENDIX. 


SAi}*TS,*  The  addreffes  in  the  other  epiflles  are  very 
liinilar. 

Can  any  man  in  his  fober  fenfes  fay,  that  he  verily 
beheves  that  thele  churches  were  made  up  of  all  de- 
fcriptions  of  character,  like  the  old  Jewiih  church  ?  We 
very  much  doubt  it.  The  convi£tion  muft  be  irrefifti- 
ble  that  they  were  compofed  of  none  but  profefftd  faints. 
We  fpeak  with  this  caution,  becaufe  that  human  dif- 
ccrnment  is  not  ahvays  lulficient  to  dete£l  hypocrify. 
Thofe  who  take  the  greatell  heoi  kciv  they  buHd^  may  at 
times  be  deceived,  as  Philip  was  with  Simon.  He  ap- 
peared no  doubt  to  the  etangelift  to  be  lavingly 
wrought  upon  ;  but  afterwards  manifcfted,  th£t  he  /.ad 
neither  lot  nor  part  in  i/w  matter.  This  is  after  all  a  \(.TV 
diSFerent  thing  from  admitting  perfons  without  any 
profeiiion,  and  of  whom  charity  icfelf  cannot  gather  a 
hope,  that  they  ever  knew  any  thing  experimentally 
about  religion. 

The  true  gofpel  church  has  never  been  national  hnce 
its  commencement,  and  probably  never  will  be  until  the 
jMilleniuni,  whatever  it  may  then. 

It  is  thought  probable  that  there  is  as  large  a  propor- 
tion of  true  Chrirtians  in  thefe  United  States,  as  there 
lias  ever  been  in  any  nation  including  the  fame  number 
of  inhabitants,  fince  the  Chrifliin  era.  But  is  there* 
I'erious  perfon  of  any  denomination  in  this  land  who 
would  dare  to  fay,  that  in  his  opinion  this  whole  nation 
was,  according  to  the  rules  exhibited  in  the  Now  Tefta- 
nienc,  properly  qualitied  for  memberfliip  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  church  .''  We  prefume  the  contrary.  The  general 
praftice  of  all  the  churches  (however  lax  their  dif- 
•cipline  may  be)  goes  to  eltablifh  our  fentiment. 

That  the  Jewith  and  Chriftian  churches  are  not  the 
fame,  may  be  argued,  thirdly,  from  feveral  paffages  of 
j'cripture  which  reprefeut  the  gofpel  church  as  com- 
mencing at  a  different  period,  as  well  as  exifting  in  a 
diiTerent  form  from  the  ancient  church. 

In  explaining  the  image  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
faw  in  his  dream,  Daniel  foretold,  that  four  great 
Kienarclues  Ihould  fucceed  each  other,  and  that  the  laft^ 

•  Ronv  i.  7.         I  Cor  i.  2. 


APPENDIX, 


199 


(houki  be  diviued  into  ten  kingdoms,  &c.  h>  the  days 
of  thfff  kif/gsy  hxith  he,Jh(i/l  the  God  of  ke.iveti  fet  up  a 
kingdom  which  fljtdl  never  k  difyD\cd  \  and  the  kingdom  fyall 
not  be  left  to  othr  people,  but  it  fhall  break  in  pieces  and  con- 
fume  all  thefe  kifigdonij,  and  it fhal! fand  for  cvt  f.'^ 

'•This  defcription,  faith  Bilhop  Newton,  can  with  pro- 
priety only  be  underftood,  as  the  ancients  undcrftood  it, 
of  the  kingdom  of  Chrill.  And  in  the  days  of  thcjc  kings, 
that  is,  in  the  clays  of  fome  of  them.  And  it  muft  be 
during  the  days  of  the  laft  of  them  ;  becaufe  they  are 
reckoned /o«r  in  fuccellion,  and  confequently  this  muft 
be  the  fifth  kingdom.  Accordingly  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift  was  fct  up  during  the  days  of  the  laft  of  thefe 
kingdoms,  that  is,  the  Roman.  The fione  was  totally 
a  diifercnt  thing  from  the  image,  and  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift  is  totally  different  from  the  kingdoms  of  this 
woHd.  The  fione  ivas  cut  out  cf  the  mountain  ivithout 
hands,  as  our  heavenly  body  is  faid  tc  be  a  building  of 
God,  an  hcvfe  not  made  iL-ith  hands,  that  is,  fpiritual,  as 
the  phrafe  is  ufed  in  other  places.  This  the  fathers 
generally  apply  to  Chriil  himfelf,  who  was  miraculoufly 
born  of  a  virgin  ;  without  the  concurrence  of  a  man  : 
but  it  ftiould  rather  be  underftood  of  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift,  which  was  formed  out  of  the  Roman  en.pire, 
not  by  number  of  hands,  or  ftrength  of  arraies ;  bat 
without  human  means,  and  the  virtue  of  fecond  caufes. 
This  kingdom  was  fet  up  by  the  God  of  heaven  ;  and 
from  hence  the  phrafe  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  caiv.e  to 
lignify  the  kingdom  of  the  Meffiah.  It  was  fo  ufed 
and  undcrftood  by  the  Jews,  and  fo  it  is  applied  bv 
our  Saviour  in  tlie  New  Teftament.  Other  kingdoms 
were  raifed  by  human  ambition  and  worldly  power  ; 
but  this  was  the  work,  not  of  man  but  of  God.  This 
was  truly,  as  it  is  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  A  king- 
dom not  of  this  -world  ;  its  laws,  its  powers  were  all 
divine."  "  As  we  may  prcfume  to  fay,  that  this  is  the 
only  true  and  genuine  interpretation  of  this  paiTage, 
fo  iikcwife  it  is  the  moft  confonant  to  the  fenfe  of  all 
ancient  writers,  both  Jews  and  Chriftians."f 


*  Dau  iL  44.  f  DifT.  on.the  Piophsties,  p.  243,  2^4. 


APrENDlX. 


We  know  of  no  Chriftian  cxpolitor  who  does  n«t 
Gonfider  this  as  a  prediclion  of  the  gofpel  church.  But 
if  this  church  had  been  (et  up  move  than  thirteen  hun-  i 
xlred  years  bcfc  re,  why  ihould  Daniel  ipeak  of  it  as  an 
event  ftill  future.    That  we  might  not  be  hable  to  mif-  i 
take,  he  foretold  the  period  when  it  ihould  take  place,  j 
In  the  days  of  thffe  kings  ;  or  during  the  continuance  of  ^ 
one  of  them,  the  Roman   monarchy,  Chrifi:  fliould 
make  his  appearance,  and  fet  up  his  gofpel  kingdom. 

Conformably  to  this  fentiment,  we  find  our  bleffed 
Lord  olteu  fpeaking  of  the  gofpel  difpenfation  under 
the  metaphor  of  a  kingdom.  He  ufes  the  fame  lan- 
guage with  refpedc  to  his  church.  When  he  faid  to 
the  Jews,  //  /  caj  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God^  then  the 
lit!gdc77i  of  God  is  c»me  unto  ycu  ;*  here  he  evidently 
Kieant  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 

We  think  the  fame  was  meant  in  that  folemn  threat- 
ening denounced  againff  the  Jews  for  their  unbelief,  in  ; 
the  following  wortls  ;  Therefore  fay  I  unto  you,  that  the 
i:i;:gdcn!  cf  God  [hall  he  ttken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  j 
nation  byi/:fj:g  forth  ihe  fruits  thereof By  which  he 
evidently  meant  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  with  all  its  j 
privileges  and  bleflings  :  not  the  old  Jewifh  difpenfa-  I 
tion  and  the  rites  belonging  to  that.    No  ;  thefe,  in  ! 
the  fenfe  of  our  Saviour,  were  neither  taken  from  them, 
nor  given  to  any  others.    The  Jews  ftill  retain  many 
of  them,  and  in  their  prefent  fituation  exhibit  much 
the  fame  appearance  of  vinbility  as  a  church,  as  they  | 
did  during  the  firft  four  hundred  years,  before  their 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage.    CircumcilioQ  was 
tlie  principal  rite  by  which  they  were  then  diftinguillied 
from  other  nations  :  They  arc  to  this  day  diftinguilhed 
by  the  lanie. 

Our  Lord,  upon  a  different  occafion,  replied  to 
the  fame  cavilling  Jews,  Vtrily  I  fay  unto  ycu,  that  the 
fuhUcans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  before 
you.  For  John  came  unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteoufmfs, 
and  beiicvtd  him  not  ;  but  the  publicans  and  the  harlots 
BELiEVUD  him.  And  ye,  ivhen  ye  had  feen  it, 'RI  PEKTUD 
not  afterward  that  ye  might  BELIEVE  him-X  As  the  pharifses 


APPENDIX. 


201 


litre  charged  with  impenitence  and  unbciief,  we 

V  fuppofe  that  the  pubHcans  and  harlots  avIio  are 
i.i  .vl  to  go  inti  ihe  kingdotn  Gul,  were  fuch  as  under  the 
miniftry  of  John  were  brought  to  true  repentance,  to 
beUeve  on  the  Mefliah  whom  he  decbrcd  to  be  at  h^nd, 
and  to  be  baptized  of  him.  If  the  kingdom  of  God, 
or  gofpel  church,  and  the  Jewifh  church  were  the 
fame,  then  thefe /)«/'/uv7«j  and  /rar/cts,  before  they  em- 
braced John's  dodtrine,  yea,  and  the  pharifees  too,  were 
all  in  the  kingdom  of  God  !  for  they  undoubtedly  all 
belonged  to  the  Jewifh  church. 

The  fcribes  and  pharifees  fat  in  Mofes'  feat,  and 
were  perfons  of  the  firft  eminence  in  the  Jewirti  church  ; 
but  Jelus  faid  to  his  difciples.  Except  your  righteoufnefs 
exceed  the  righicoiifmfs  of  the  fcribes  and  pharifees,  yf  fjall  in 
no  cafe  ENTtR  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.* 

Whether  the  kingdom  of  grace,  or  the  kingdom  of 
glory  be  intended  in  this  paffage,  this  much  is  evident, 
that  being  membei-s  of  the  JewiQi  church,  did  not 
qualify  for  either. 

This  argument  will  be  further  illuftrated  and  flrengtli- 
ened  by  the  words  of  our  fuffering  Redeemer,  when  in- 
terrogated by  Pilate.  Thine  oivn  nation,  faid  he,  and  the 
chief  priifls  have  delivered  thee  unto  me.  What  hajl  thou 
done ;  fefus  nnfwered,  My  KINGDOM  IS  NOT  OF  THIS 
WORLD  !  f  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my 
fervants  fight,  that  I Jhould  not  be  delivired  to  the  j£ws.\ 
By  this  declaration  Jefus  has  given  an  indelible  charac- 
ter to  his  church  ;  and  which  nuift  ff.rever  diftinguilh 
it  from  the  Jewiih  church.  The  latter  was  not  only 
organized  as  a  body  politic,  but  its  men  of  war  were 
marflialled,  and  frequently  led  to  the  light  by  mil- 
itary chieftains. 

It  muft  be  evident  to  every  candid  mind  that  the 
Jewilli  church,  in  every  ftage  of  it,  notwithftanding  it 
contained  ibrae  true  believers,  was  principally  of  this 
world.  This  muft  be  the  cafe  with  evtry  other  cliurch, 
formed  ftridtly  upon  the  principles  of  infant  meraber- 
(liip,  whether  they  are  admitted  by  circumcifion  or 
baptifm.    We  appeal  to  the  common  fenfe  of  Chrif- 

•  M»tt.  V.  i3.  -f  John  jvlii.  35,  36. 

T  2 


202 


APPENDIX. 


tians,  whether,  to  atlniit  the  hypcthefis  laid  down  by 
the  Paedobaptifts,  that  all  the  children  cf  believers  have 
a  right  to  memberihip  in  the  golpel  church,  would  rot, 
if  put  in  practice,  make  fuch  as  are  of  the  world,  a  valt 
majority  in  moft  churches  ?  Are  not  the  baptized,  in 
moft  Psedobaptift  congregations,  to  thofe  who  actually 
take  upon  theailelves  a  voluntary  profeffion  of  religion 
and  give  evidence  that  they  are  real  Chriftians,  as  two  to 
one  ?  Pjfobably  a  much  greater  majority.  If  thefe  arc 
all  included  in  the  Chriftian  church,  (and  they  muft  be, 
or  their  argument  is  loft)  can  it  be  faid,  that  fuch  a 
church  is  not  of  this  world  ?  We  might  with  as  much 
propriety  fay,  that  a  town-meeting  was  not  of  this 
world,  becaufe  a  number  of  the  qualified  voters  were 
Chriflians.  For  in  the  latter  there  would  probably  be 
about  the  fame  proportion  of  Chriftians,  as  in  the 
former. 

It  would  be  an  infult  upon  the  underftanding  of  men, 
to  attempt  to  maintain  the  two  oppolite  points,  that 
new-born  infants  muft  be  admitted  to  memberfnip  in 
the  Chriftian  church,  and  that  the  church  was  never- 
thelefs  not  of  this  nvorlJ^  but  a  fpiritual  body.  A  man 
%vho  could  believe  this,  would  have  but  little  difficuky 
in  believing  tranfubjlantiation,  or  any  other  abfurdiry. 

No  man  who  examines  with  candour  the  hiftory  of 
the  Jewifh  church  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  till  the 
deftruftion  of  their  nation  and  temple  by  Vefpafian,  but 
what  muft  conclude,  that  the  true  believers  at  any  pe- 
riod would  have  been,  when  compared  with  the  whole 
nation,  only  a  J'mall  minority  !  a  remnant  according  to  the 
eleEiion  of  grace.  They  were  fo  few,  and  fo  unknown  in 
the  time  of  EHjah,  that  he  thought  he  was  left  alone. 
And  notwithftanding  the  anfwer  of  God  happily  con- 
TinceJ  him  of  his  miftake,  yet  the  number  mentioned 
were  few  compared  with  the  tlioufands  of  Ifrael  and 
Judah. 

Can  we  ferioufty  fuppofe  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
Jefus  Chrift  to  continue  this  church  in  its  then  vihblc 
form,  or  to  fet  up  another  like  it  ?  Does  the  New  Tef- 
tament  lead  to  fuch  a  conclulion  ?  Does  not  the  lan- 
guage of  Chrift  and  his  apoftJes  confirm  exaclly  th^ 


w 


APPENDIX. 


203 


oppofite  ?  ')fe  are  the  light  of  the  -wor/cl,  faid  Jefus  to  his 
Httle  church.  ^  city  that  is  fet  on  an  hill  cannot  be  hid.* 
If  ye  luere  of  the  worlds  the  luorld  would  love  his  own  but 
becHufe  ye  are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  have  chofen  ym  out  of 
the  avorldy  therefore  the  world  hateth  you.-\  This  is  the 
manner  in  which  our  bleffed  Lord  dellgnated  his  dil- 
ciples.  The  particular  manner  in  which  they  were 
brought  to  an  intereft  in  the  bleffings  of  this  kingdom, 
is  thus  exprefled  by  the  apoftle  to  the  Colollians : 
Who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  darhiefs,  and 
hath  tranflated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  Bon.\  Every 
perfon  who  claims  the  privilege  of  the  Chriftian  name, 
ought  to  be  able  to  give  the  fame  reafon  of  his  hope. 
Such  perfons  may  fay  with  the  apoftle,  Wherefore  we  re- 
ceiving a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved,  let  us  have  grace, 
or  grant  us  grace,  whereby  we  may  ferve  God  acceptably. 
None  but  fuch  as  experience  renewing  grace,  poffefe 
any  one  of  thefe  qualifications.  No  others  are  lights  in 
the  religious  world.  No  others  have  been  tranflated 
from  the  darknefs  of  the  world  and  fin  into  the  kingdom 
of  God's  dear  Son.  No  others  have  received  this  im- 
moveable kingdom. 

When  the  Saviour  afked  his  difciples  their  opinion 
concerning  himfelf,  Peier  anfwered,  Thou  art  the  Lhrifly 
4the  Son  of  the  living  God  J  And  ffus  anfivcred  and  [aid 
■unto  him,  BleJJ'ed  art  thou  Simon  Barjona  ;  for  fitfij  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is 
in  heavett.  And  I  fay  unto  thee^  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gatts  of  hell Jhall 
not  prevail  againji  it.  The  Jewi{h  church  did  not  be- 
lieve that  Jefus  Chrift  was  the  Son  of  God.  They  con- 
lidered  and  treated  him  as  an  impoftor.  They  charg- 
ed him  with  blai'phemy,  and  faid,  he  being  a  man  made 
himfelf  God.  But  every  truly  enlightened  Chriftian 
can  fubfcribe  with  Peter,  Thou  art  the  Chrift,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.  The  rulers  of  the  JewiQi  church 
blafphemoufly  replied  to  him,  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art 
a  Sam.iritan,  and  haji  a  devil  ?  Tliis  was  the  infulting  lan- 
guage of  the  leaders  of  that  very  church,  which  we  are 


*  Matt.  V.  14.  XT.  19.        \  Col,  i,  13. 


204 


APPENDIX. 


told  was  the  gofpel  church,  and  was  continued  without 
any  "  eflential  alteration."* 

Onr  fourth  and  laft  argument  to  prove  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  totally  diftinct  from,  and  independent  of,  the 
Jewifli,  ihall  be  drawn  from  fafts  recorded  in  the  New 
Teftament.    «'  Fafts  arc  ftubborn  things." 

If  (as  the  advocates  for  infant  baptifm  aflert)  the 
gofpel  church  did  incorporate  with  the  old  JewiQi 
church,  we  may  expedt  fuch  an  account  of  it  in  the 
writings  of  the  evangelifts  and  apoftles,  as  to  put  the 
matter  out  of  difpute.  Should  we  find  them  entirely 
filent  \>n  a  fubje^t  of  fo  much  moment,  its  truth  might 
very  juftly  be  called  in  queftion.  But  if,  inilead  of  be- 
ing fdent,  we  find  them  to  have  recorded  fafts  which 
irrefiftibly  prove  the  contrary,  we  fiiould  fuppofe  Ikep- 
ticifm  itfelf  would  ceafe  to  doubt.  Let  us  proceed  to 
examine  the  proof.  To  the  laiv  and  to  the  teftimcNy,  as 
the  final  umpire,  we  cheerfully  repair,  and  pledge  our- 
felves  to  abide  the  decifion. 

If  our  minds  are  open  and  candid,  we  fnall  find  the 
narrative  plain  and  fimple  •,  the  facts  fo  abundant,  and 
fo  varioully  interfperfcd,  that  we  cannot  eafily  miftake 
them.  In  order  to  trace  them  with  preciiion,  we  muft 
.travel  back  to  the  commencement  of  this  new  difpenfa- 
tion,  » 

Chriftian  reader,  if  your  Bible  be  at  hand,  turn  to 
the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  read,  and  examine 
it  candidly  •,  or. will  yoa  permit  me  to  repeat  a  few 
fentences,  and  make  fome  remarks  upon  them  ?  In 
ihofe  days  came  John  the  Baptijl^  preaching  in  the  ivilder- 
■  tiefs  of  Judca.  Who  was  this  John  the  Baptift  ?  He 
was  the  perfon  of  whom  Kaiah  fpake  in  prophecy. 
The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  ivildernefsy  Prepare  ye  the 
nuay  cf  the  Lord,  mjke  his  paths  ftraight.  Did  John  de- 
rive his  authority  to  preach  and  baptize  from  the  Jew- 
i(h  church  ?  Mofi:  certainly  he  did  not.  For  it  appears 
that  he  had  been  in  the  deferts  from  early  life  until  the 
day  of  his  fheiuing  unto  IJrael.\  How  came  he  then  by 
his  authority  .''  The  evangelift  John  fliall  anfwer  : 
There  ivas  a  man  sent  FROM  GoD  luhofe  name  luas  John. 
The  Jewifh  church  fent  a  deputation  of  prieAs  and 


■»  Vid.  P.  EdvTards,  p.  i  ^  Luke  i.  $0. 


APPENt)IX. 


205 


Levites  to  him  to  inquire  who  he  was;  whether  he 
rc  the  Mefliah  ?  if  not,  why  he  baptized  r*  By 
ith  it  appears  that  he  did  not  Itand  in  connexion 
that  church,  nor  aft  under  its  authority.  It  will 
be  here  recollected  how  completely  Chrilt  confounded 
the  leaders  of  that  church  by  this  fimple  queftion. 
'Ihf  baptlfin  of  John,  faid  he,  ivhcur>[ivas  it  ?  from  hcavcu 
or  cf  t/ienPf  The  chief  prieft  was  among  the  party  ;  they 
mult  therefore  certiunly  have  known  if  John  had  been 
inducted  into  the  prieft's  office  by  them  ;  or  had  in  any 
way  received  his  authority  from  them.  There  can  bV 
no  imaginable  reafon  aiilgned  for  their  concealing  it,  if 
this  had  been  the  cafe.  Could  they  with  propriety  have 
aflerted  the  'faft,  it  would  have  relieved  them  from 
their  prefent  embarrailment.  If  John  did  not  derive 
his  authority  from  the  oflicers  of  the  Jevvifh  church, 
(the  only  proper  medium  through  which  it  could  pafs) 
he  mufthave  a£ted  indeoetidently  of  them. 

We  alk  again,  did  John  preach  the  fame  doftrine 
which  the  leaders  of  this  church  did  ?  It  is  manifeft 
he  did  not  :  for  they  taught  for  doclri/ie  the  command- 
ments of  men,  Chrift  himlelf  being  judge.  But  John 
preached  the  true  gofpel  of  the  kingdom.  He  pointed 
his  hearers  to  the  Saviour,  as  the  Lamb  of  God  iuk$ 
taketh  away  the  Jin  of  the  world,  and  exhorted  the  people 
to  repent  and  believe  on  him.  Such  as  received  his 
doftrine,  and  confeffed  their  fins,  he  baptized  in 
Jordan. 

Was  there  any  inftitution,  or  even  cuftom  in  the 
Jewilh  church,  which  required  John  to  baptize  his  con- 
verts in  Jordan  ?  None  has  ever  yet  been  produced.  Al- 
though there  were  divers  ivnflnngs  appointed  in  the 
ritual  of  Mofes,  and  others  ^ded  by  the  fupcrftitious 
Pharifees  ;  yet  they  all  differed  widely  from  John's 
baptifm,  both  in  manner  and  delign. 

Towards  the  clofe  of  this  chapter,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing account  of  our  Saviour.  Then  comet h  Jrfus 
from  Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  haptiz.  d  of  him. 
But  John  ftrbade  him,  faying,  I  have  need  to  he  haptized  of 
thee,  and  comejl  thou  to  me  ?   ■'And  Jtfus  anfwering,  faid 


*  JoV.n  i. 


t  Matt.  x.xi.  35. 


906 


APPENDIX. 


unto  him^  Suffer  if  to  be  fo  nciv  for  thus  it  hecomtth  us  tt 
fitljil  all  rigbleoujt.tfu  Then  hi  j'uffered  him.  And  JefuSy 
luhtn  he  "was  baptized^  went  up  straightway  out  of 
THE  WATEU.  Reader  !  lay  your  hand  upon  your 
heart,  and  r.lk  yourfelf,  in  the  fear  of  God,  if  you  can 
pofilbiy  believe  tiiat  either  John  or  Jefus  in  the  whole 
of  the  tranfaclions  related  in  this  chapter,  had  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  Jewifh  church,  or  their  leaders  ?  In 
Ipite  of  all  your  prejudices,  is  there  not  a  monitor 
"within  that  tells  you,  they  had  not  ? 

Much  pains  has  been  taken  to  prove  that  when  Chrifi; 
faid,  thus  it  becamdh  u>  to  fulfil  all  righteoujnefs,  his 
meaning  was,  that  it  wa;;  neceffary  for  him  to  be  bapti- 
zed by  John  in  Jordan,  to  fulfil  a  law  which  required 
the  fons  of  Aaron,  when  entering  into  the  prieft's  oflice, 
to  be  wallied  at  -the  clcor  of  the  tabernacle.*  What  a 
happy  knack  fome  men  have,  in  reafoning from  analogy? 
But  there  is  one  unlucky  circumftance  attendmg  this 
argument,  and  which  wholly  ruins  it.  That  is,  that  by 
the  iiime  law  which  required  the  above  walhing  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle,  Jefus  Chrift  could  not  be  a 
prieft  of  that  difpenlation  •,  us  he  was  neither  of  the 
Ions  of  A:xron,  nor  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  ;  but  of  the  tribe 
of  fud.ih,  of  whijh  tribe  Mcfcs  fpake  'nothing  concerning 
priejhood. 

If  we  look  into  the  next  chapter,  we  fball  find  the 
manner  in  which  Chrift  proceeded  in  gathering  the 
New  Teftament  church.  At  the  1 8th  vcrfc  it  is  laid  ; 
And  Jefus  "walking  bj  the  fea  of  Galilee ^  fail)  tivo  brtthretiy 
Simon  called  Peter ^  and  Andrew  his.  brother^  t^'f^i^'g  ^ 
i?ito  ihi'  fa,  for  they  ivere  ffhers.  And  he  faith  unto  them^ 
Fcllciu  me,  and  I  ivill  make  you  ff'ers  of  men.  And  th^ 
fraightivay  left  their  nets  and  fUowed  him.\  And  tohm 
he  had  gone  a  little  farther  thence,  he  fauu  fames  the  fen  of 
'L'-iiJee,  ai:d  John  his  brother^  "who  alfo  uoere  in  the fjip 
t,Jt/nu/;y  tkjir  nets  ;  am' jlrdighttvay  he  called  thcm^  and 
ihey  left  their  father  Zibedee  in  the  pip  vjith  the  hired  fer- 
va'its,  and  went  after  him  X  Again,  the  next  day  after, 
f  ;hu  jhid,  and  tii  i  of  his  dijc-phi,  and  looking  upon  jfm 

'  Vid.  Miff  ?  i'ifh  and  Crane,  ard  ctV:rs. 
f  Mitt.  iv.  iS — t  M.irki.  19,29. 


APPENDIX. 


207 


ms  ke  '.l  alhed,  he  faith.  Behold  the  Lamh  of  God  !  And  the 
two  difeipUs  heard  him  fpeak,  and  they  fol'oiL'ed  Jefus.'* 

And  a  certain  fcrihe  (ame  and  fiid  unto  him-,  Alajier^  I 
%utt{ follow  thee  ivhitherfoever  then  gc^Ji  ;  and  amiher  of 
his  difc:ples  faid  unto  him.  Lord,  fuff,  r  me  firft  to  go  and 
bnry  my  father.  But  Jtfus  faid  tifto  him,  Folhw  me,  and 
let  the  dead  bury  their  dead  f  And  as  Jefus  faffed forth 
fr',m  thence,  he  faiv  «  men  named  yl  iattheiv  fitting  at  the 
receipt  if  cuflom  ;  and  he  faith  unto  him,  Follc%v  me.  And 
he  arofe  and  follonued  him  J 

The  daf  folhiving  Jefus  -would  go  forth  info  Galilee,  and 
findcth  Philip,  and  faith  ufilo  him,  Follo%u  me.  Philip 
caught  the  iSpirit  of  this  new  feet  lb  entirely,  as  not  only 
to  be  willing  to  follow  Jcfus,  bvit  to  ufe  Lis  influence 
ti>  profelyte  c.hers.  He  foon  after  met  withNathanael, 
and  faid  to  him,  We  have  fcumi  HIM  of  whom  Mofes  in 
the  law,  and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jefus  of  Nazareth, 
the  fon  of  Jofeph.  And  Nathannd  faid  unto  him.  Can  there 
any  good  thing  come  cut  of  hi.Tia.'eth  ?  Philip  fiitb  unto 
him.  Come  and  fee 

Thefe  fafts,  recorded  by  th;  evangeliftc,  place  before 
us  a  complete  hiftory  of  the  commencement  of  the  gos- 
pel church.  But  in  this  account  not  a  trace  of  its  con- 
nexion with  the  Jewilli  church  can  be  perceived. 

When  Jefus  Chrilt  appointed  his  apoftles  the  firft  ofE- 
eers  in  liis  new  church,  did  he  confult  the  chief  priefls, 
the  Jcribes  and  pharifees  ?  Or  did  he  appoint  them  by 
his  own  authority,  totally  independent  of  them  ?  Fafts 
all  unite  in  demonftruting  the  latter. 

The  reafonings  of  our  Piedobaptift  brethren  have 
nlways  appeared  to  us  exceedingly  defective  on  this 
point.  They  uniformly  argue,  that  the  Jewifli  and 
Chriftian  churches  are  the  fame  ;  and  that  the  latter  is 
no  more  than  a  continuance  of  the  former  :  but  they 
have  never  fhown  us  when,  where,  or  how  the  latter 
church  was  connefted  with  the  former  :  and  it  is  be- 
lieved that  they  never  can.  They  have  feemed  wholly 
to  (tcp  over  this  point.  At  one  time  they  prefent  to  us 
the  Jewifh  church  under  the  covenant  of  circumcifion, 
enjoying  many  privileges  and  bleflings  ;  by  and  by,  they 


*  John  i.     — 37.       f  Matt.  viii.  19,  i  I.  9. 


208 


APPENDIX. 


prefent  us  the  gofpel  church  enjoying  very  difiiJrent 
and  much  greater  privileges,  and  tell  us  that  this  is  the 
Time  church,  only  under  a  differem  difpenfation.  But 
if  this  be  a  faft,  would  not  Jefus  Chrift  and  the  leaders 
of  the  Jevvifh  church  have  afted  in  concert  ?  and 
would  not  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  and  the  members  of 
thar  church  have  been  in  harmony  with  each  other  ? 
Would  there  not  be  as  much  propriety  in  faying  that 
the  proteftant  church,  and  the  papal  church  from 
which  they  feparated  were  one  and  the  fame  ?  Some 
branches  of  ,the  proteftant  church  approximate  much 
more  to  the  papal,  than  the  gofpel  church  did  to  the 
Jewifti.  But  if  proteftants  acknowledge  their  chyrch 
to  be  but  a  continuance  of  the  old  papal  church,  we 
think  they  ought  at  leaft  to  make  fome  confeftion  for 
having  abufed  their  Aiwa  Maier,  by  calling  her  the 
"  eld  whore  of  Babylon" — "  The  mother  of  abom- 
inations, &c." 

It  is  a  faft  which  no  one  can  deny,  that  Jefus  Chrift, 
during  his  perfonal  miniftry,  did  collect  a  large  number 
of  difciples  and  followers  of  both  fexcs  :  that  he  fent 
forth  feventy  difciples  at  onetime  to  preach  the  gofpel, 
and  to  evince  its  power  by  miracles.  That  thcfe  all 
ftood.  totally  unconne^Sted  with  the  old  Jewifli  church 
is  abundantly  evident,  from  the  unceafmg  oppofition 
which  the  latter  made  to  the  former.  We  beg  to  know 
whether  Chrift's  difciples,  with  their  Mafter  at  their 
head,  did  not  conftitute  a  church,  a  complete  church 
in  gofpel  order  ?  If  fo,  here  were  two  churches  exifting 
at  the  fame  time  in  direft  oppofition  to  each  other  : 
for  it  muft  be  remembered  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  not  yet  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. We  alk,  which  of  thcie  two  is  to  be  conhdered 
as  the  truf  church  ?  The  Jewifli  church  continued  its 
vifible  ftate,  and  retained  its  vihble  forms  of  worfliip 
long  after  the  eftablirtiment  of  Chriftianity.  And  there 
>vas  juft  as  much  friendfliip  in  this  old  church  towards 
the  followers  of  Jefus,  when  they  ftoned  Stephen  to 
death  for  no  other  fault,  than  becaufe  he  was  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  when  they  caught  Paul  in  the 
temple  and  were  ready  to  pull  him  in  quarters,  as  whea 


APPENDIX. 


209 


Jt-rus  was  in  the  midft  of  tliem,  teaching  and  preaching 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Did  Chrift  treat  the  Jewifh  church  in  fuch  a  manner, 
or  receive  fuch  treatment  from  it,  as  would  lead  us  to 
fuppofe  that  he  conlidered  it  as  his  church,  which  he 
purchafed  with  his  own  blood  ? 

To  elucidate  the  idea,  pleafe  to  examine  the  debate 
between  Chrift  and  the  leaders  of  this  church,  recorded 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  John.  In  this,  Jefus  declared 
hiuifelf  the  light  of  the  ivorld.  The  Pharifees  difbelieved 
it,  and  told  him  plainly  that  he  bore  record  of  himfef,  and 

i  his  record  was  not  true.  (ver.  12,  13.)    Chrift  told 

;n  that  they  were  ignorant  both  of  him  and  of  his 

lier.  (v.  19.)  Te  are,  faid  he,yrow;  beneath)  I  atn  from 
e'l  ye  are  of  this  lucrkl,  I  am  not  of  this  tuorld. — If  ye 

■,  ve  not  that  Jam  he,  y  fhalldie  in  your  Jlris.  (v.  23,  24.) 
1!)  order  to  evade  the  force  of  Chrift's  dodtrine,  they 
pleaded  their  covenant  privileges  :  We  be  Abraham's  feed. 
'   '::w  that  ye  are  Abraham's  feed,  replied  Jcfus  ;  tut  ye 
to  kill  vie,  beciiufi  my  ivord  hath  no  place  in  you.  I 

<l  that  which  I  have  feen  with  my  Father,  and  ye  dt 
:,'..U  which  ye  haue  feen  with  your  father.  They  anfwered 
i-iid  [aid  unto  him,  Abraham  is  our  father.     Jefus  faith  unto 

>!,  If  ye  were  Abraham's  CHILDREN,  you  would  do  the 
':s  of  Abraham.  Chrift  feems  to  admit  that  they 
c  Abraham's  natural  feed,  but  denies  that  they  were 

children  in  a  fpirituul  fenfe.  Unwilling  to  acknow!- 
themfelves  deftitute  of  religion,  and  to  prove  that 
they  had  a  fair  title  to  heaven  without  being  indebted 
to  him,  they  declared  that  God  was  their  Father.  Jfus 
faid  unto  them.  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me  : 
for  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God  ;  neifher  came  I 
of  myfeljy  but  he  fent  me.  (v.  ^l,  4  2.)  At  length  Chrift 
faid  to  them,  21?  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the  lufts 
of  your  father  ye  will  do.  (v.  44-.)  With  a  view  no  doubt 
to  fhow  the  keennefs  of  their  refentment  at  this  plain 
dealing,  they  anfwered  him,  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art 
a  Samaritan,  and  hafl  a  devil  ?  Does  this  look  like  that 
language  of  love  which  fubfifted  between  Clii-ift  and 
.  his  true  church  ?  Every  candid  heart  will  reply,  No. 


21t 


APPENDIX. 


Is  it  poffible  to  bring  our  minds  to  believe  that  the 
true  church  could  ever  treat  the  blelTed  Saviour  as  the 
Jews  treated  him  ?  They  not  only  defpifed  and  held 
him  in  contempt,  calumniated  and  abufed  him,  but  ac- 
tually perfe«uted  him  to  death  !  Who  was  it  that  the 
traitor  covenanted  with,  to  ft-ll  his  Lord  for  thirty 
pieces  of  filver  ?  Was  it  to  an  ignorant  mob,  made  up 
of  Gentile  libertines,  and  headed  by  fome  fanatical 
leader  ?  No  fuch  thing.  Judas  made  his  calculations  with 
more  certainty.  He  went  diredHy  to  the  chief  priests, 
the  principal  leaders  in  this  church.  And  do  you 
think  they  would  let  fo  fair  an  opportunity  pafs,  to  get 
into  their  hands  a  man  whom  they  hated  ?  Surely  no. 
The  bargain  was  clofed  at  once  ;  and  Judas  was  fent 
with  a  band  of  men  to  arreft  him.*  Who  was  it  firft 
formed  the  defign  of  putting  Jefus  to  death  ?  The  princi- 
pal leaders  of  the  Jewifh  church,  ^r.d  ivhen  the  morn- 
ing ivns  come,  ALL  THE  CHIEF  PRIESTS  AND  ELDERS  of 
the  people  took  couvfel  againjl  Jefus  to  put  him  to  death.  In 
order  to  accompUfh  their  murderous  defign,  he  muft 
be  delivered  to  Pilate  the  governor,  to  pafs  fentence 
of  death  upon  him.  Pilate,  though  a  Gentile,  feemed 
to  have  Ibme  fenfe  of  moral  juftice,  and  was  denrous  to 
underftand  the  real  caufe  of  their  complaint.  But  who 
arraigned  him  before  Pilate's  bar  ?  Thine  oivn  naihn, 
faid  he,  and  the  chief  priefls  have  delivered  thee  to  me — 
What  hafl  thou  dene  ?  Jefus  at  once  ftated  the  true 
ground  of  the  controverfy.  My  kingdom,  faid  he,  is  not 
of  this  luorld.  The  more  Pilate  heard  and  faw,  the 
rtronger  was  his  convi(Slion  of  the  innocency  of  Jefus. 
Several  means  had  been  employed  to  avert  the  fentence, 
but  without  efFeft.  At  length,  recoiled^ ing  that  it  had 
been  a  cuftc/m  at  this  feaft  to  releafe  a  prifoner,  and 
having  two,  he  hoped  they  would  choofe  Jefus.  But  in 
this  he  was  deceived.  His  perfuafions  vrere  all  in  vain. 
Malice  had  fixed  the  infernal  purpofe  too  ftrongly  in 
their  breafts  to  be  fliaken  by  his  reafonings.  No,  Jefus 
muft  die.  His  crucifixion  was  determined  on.  Hence 
the  chief  priefls  and  elders  perfuaded  the  multitude  that  they 
fiould  aJk  Barabbas,  and  deflroy  Jefus.\    O  thoa  infulttd. 


•  Mitt.        14,  ij.  47-  t  M«t.  xwii.  10. 


APPENDIX. 


211 


fuilVring  Lamb  of  God  !  were  thefe  the  leaders  of  thy 
church,  thy  true  gofpel  church  ?  Muft  we  confider 
them  as  thy  friends,  while  manifefting  this  murderous 
oppolition  to  thee,  merely  becaufe  they  defcended  from 
the  loins  of  Abraham  ?  We  cannot.  Our  hearts  revolt 
at  the  horrid  thought. 

Nor  can  we  believe  that  this  was  the  church  into 
which  the  .Gentile  converts  were  grafted.  No  ;  it  was 
the  church  gathered  by  Jeliis,  and  his  apoftles  ;  from 
among  the  Jews  indeed,  but  compofed  only  of  the  con- 
verts to  his  new  doctrine  ;  of  feparates  from  the  old 
Jewilh  church  and  religion.  No  others  compofed  any 
part  of  the  New  Teftament  church.  Muft  we  not  fhut 
cur  eyes  againft  the  cleareft  light  to  believe -other  wife  ? 
We  certainly  muft. 

This,  however,  is  one  of  the  main  pillars  on  which 
P<edobaptilm  rcfts,  That  this  old  Jewifli  church  and  the 
New  Teftament  church,  are  the  fame.  Th.i?  is  Mr. 
Edwards's  potent  argument,  with  which  he  has  afl'ailed 
the  Baptifts,  and  laid  them  (in  his  imagination)  heaps 
upon  heaps,  as  Samfon  did  the  Philiftines  with  the 
jaw-bone  of  an  afs.  But  with  all  his  zeal  to  maintain 
the  famenefi  of  the  Jewilh  and  Chriftian  churches,  his 
confcience  compelled  him  to  make  one  very  juft  concci- 
lion.  His  confcience,  did  I  fay'  ?  No,  I  rather  think  he 
was  a  httle  off  his  guard.  Speaking  of  the  Jewifh 
people  coile<flively,  he  fays  ;  "  As  to  their  eh,  lacler, 
it  is  certain  that,  a  few  only  excepted,  they  were  upon 
the  whole  the  deadly  enemies  of  Christ  and  his 
doftrine."  (p.  62.)  Reader!  paufe  a  moment,  and  re- 
flect upon  this  declaration.  That  the  Jewilh  church,  a 
few,  a  very  fiivy  excepted,  were  the  deadly  enemii's  of 
Chrift  and  his  doiflrine  !  And  yet,  if  there  be  any  truth 
in  Mr.  Edwards's  argument,  this  was  not  only  a  fawple 
of  the  gofpel  church,  but  the  church  in  reality  !  the 
fame  with  that  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation.  A  little 
altered  indeed  in  "  diet"  and  "  drefs,"  but  identically 
the  fame.*  And  was  this  one  of  Mr.  Edwards's  "  can- 
did reafons  for  leaving  the  Baptifts,"  becaufe  they  do 
net  believe  Chrift's  church  to  be  principally  made  up  of 


•  Vid.  p.  46,48- 


2l2 


APPENDIX. 


his  deadly  enemies  ?  The  Baptifts  entertain  no  fuch 
horrid  idea.  If  he  believes  his  own  reafoning,  it  wis 
certainly  a  very  fuificient  one  for  his  lesving  a  com- 
munity who  think  very  differently  :  For  hoiv  tan  ticc 
•u-alk  togethet-y  except  they  be  agreed  P 

We  have  thus  briefly  ftp.ted  a  fevir  fafts  which  ferve 
to  ftiow  the  temper  and  feelings  of  the  Jewifh  church 
towards  our  blelTed  Redeemer  and  his  dodh-ine,  and 
alfo  what  treatment  he  received  from  them. 

We  will  now  inquire,  whether  the  apoftles  of  J  fus 
Chrift  agreed  in  fentiment  with  the  advocates  for  infant 
baptlfm,  with  refpe£l:  to  the  famcnejs  of  the  Jewiih 
and  Chriftian  churches. 

Immediately  after  the  afcenfion  of  the  Saviour,  we 
are  prefented  with  a  view  of  h.\s  liith  flock  ;  this  new 
gofpel  church  in  a  company  by  themfelves.  Here  wc 
lind  a  body  of  difciples,  amounting  to  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty,  afTcmbled  in  an  open  room  at  Jerufa- 
lem.  Thefe  all  continued  lo'ith  cne  accord^  in  prayer  and 
f applications  1  iviththe  women y  and  Alary  the  mother  of  Jefus^ 
and  ivith  his  brethren.  Here  were  no  frribes  nor  phari- 
fees  intermixed.  No  one  who  retained  his  ftanding  in 
the  Jewifh  chui-ch,  nor  any  who  felt  unfriendly  to  the 
interefts  of  Jcfus.  The  traitor  himfelf  no  longer  ob- 
truded his  unhallowed  prefence  among  them.  They 
were  all  united  in  love.*  When  the  day  cf  pentecofl  -uas 
fulh  come,  we  find  them  again  together,  ivith  one  accord 
in  one  place.  Here  the  apcfiles  experienced  the  fulfil- 
ment whr>t  hud  been  predicted  bv  John,  and  promif- 
ed  by  Chrift.  They  were  all  baptized  ivhh  the  Holy 
Ghod  andf.ye.  No  fooner  was  this  noifed  abroad,  than 
a  vafi  multitude  colleded.  Some  were  ftruck  with 
wonder  and  amazement ;  others  mocked,  and  faid  thefe 
men  are  full  of  ne-m  ivine.  But  Peter  ftood  up  and  ad- 
drelTcd  the  multitude  in  a  difcourfe  peculiarly  adapted 
to  the  occafion,  and  to  the  circumftances  of  his  audi- 
ence. Kis  preaching  was  attended  with  a  marvellous 
difplay  of  divine  power.  He  courluded  in  the  following 
words  ;  Therefre  let  am.  the  hotfe  of  Ifrael  know  affurcdly, 
lh.1t  Ged  hath  wide  that  fame  ffus,  "juhoni  YE  HAVE  CR\> 


«  ,A(35  i  14- 


APPENDIX. 


,  t  u,  ht/j  Lord  ami  Cbrifi.    Here  the  huife  of  Ifrael  \ 

church  coUectivxMy,  is  charged  with  having  takf:i 
Son  of  God,  and  with  wicked  hands  cruciiied  and 
1  him.     The  word  delivered  by  Peter  became 
j'cr  than  z  t-iuo-edged  ftuord  !  And  they  luere  pricked 
'u  ir  heart,  and  Jald  unto  Peter ,  and  to  the  rejl  of  the 
A.  f.liS,  Men  and  brethren,  lohat fJjall  %ve  do  ?    Ih^n  Feter 
faid  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you'  in 
the  name  of  Jifi'S  Chrifi,for  the  rewifftonoffuis,  and  ye 
pall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghofl.     For  the promife  is 
unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  o^, 
evi.  n  as  many  r.s  the  Lord  our  G^d fhall  call.* 

What  fjall  we  ds  ?  was  the  language  of  thofe  wound- 
ed-hearted  iinners.  Repent,  faid  Peter,  and  be  bepnxid 
every  one  of  you.  He  commanded  none  to  be  ha'^tizeJ, 
but  what  he  firfl  commanded  to  repent.  The  j  romile 
of  remiiTion  of  fins,  and  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Gliof:, 
•was  not  made  to  all  indiu;rinainaieiy,  but  was  predicated 
\tpon  their  repentance  and  baptifm,  upon  their  being 
called  by  the  Lord,  and  not  upon  the  baptifm  of  ira- 
pcnitents.  The  promife  quoted  by  the  apoftle,  as  an 
encouragement  to  them  and  to  their  children  to  repent, 
ir.uft  alfo  be  underftood  with  this  limitation. 

*  The  apiiftic  here  no  doubt  allijded  to  the  rrniKi.  r.-  oraed  by  tlie 
piophet  J  crcir.iah.  Scbold  the  days  ottney  fiiith  ti.c  J-tr^'y  I  lojl!  >i:uke 
a  Ntw  COVENANT  -with  the  lioufe  of  IJrucl  and  \i't  h  ih,  hoij:  of  JuaA-  : 
net  aicvrding  to  tlie  covenant  t  'uut  I  made  iviih  lh:ir  fjtl.rrs  in  tie  j'jji 
leben  I  totk  then:  by  the  Imndte  bring  tier;:  qu:  tf  the  Liud  of  £^-yit,  n-l'i.i 
my  eovenjnt  they  brole,  atttuu->l)  I '^vas  an  hujh.iiid  unto  tlum ,  f.:i:'j  the  Lo' i 
Hut  this  fhall  be  the  covenant  thai  I  willviatc  -with  the  Lnufc  oflf.atl  ..fiir 
tbofe  days,  faith  the  Lt)d,  I  wiiL  ru  r  My  law  ih  tiucik  inwh^d 
PARTS,  AND  WRITE  IT  IN  TUEiR  HE.\ETS,  and  icill  be  tbar  God.  c:J 
ibey  fhall  be  my  people.  And  they  /hall  teach  ttt  mare  e-v.-ry  ma,:  hn  i.ciih- 
hour,  and  every  man  bis  bfcther,Jayinif,  Knoiv  ye  the  Ltrd  ;  for  ih  y  s  ii  a  i,  l- 
ALL  K,NOiy  ME,/,e<a  the  leafi  of  the  m  unto  the  great.-f  -/'  tlr^.f^nh  tie 
Lord  i  for  I  itiiil  forgi-ue  their  iniquity,  and  remember  /  ,  -  '  ■ :  ^  \ 

This  new  covenant  was  eitabllllicd  upon  bet:er  pro;?.-.;:  .  n- 

tained  in  the  covenant  of  circumcifioii.  God  did:  it 
the  renewing  influences  t.f  tiie  Holy  Spirit,  toput  hij  ,,  zi  a,d- 

p»rtt.  That  covenant  was  outward  in  the  f.<fh  ;  this  ii.  inward,  the 
lu-u)  written  upon  the  heart.  Tn  this  new  covcoant,  the  very  haft  knows 
the  Lord.  In  that,  many  who  were  tlie  greatfi  in  office  and  po^ver, 
lm*w  cot  the  Lord. 

I  Jer.  Mxi.  3t — 34. 
U  2 


.14 


APPENDIX. 


We  cannot  poffibly  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards  in  Lis 
explanation  of  this  pafTage.  His  reafoning,  to  us  ap- 
pears both  fophiftical  and  abfurd.  He  is  i'o  very  anx- 
ious to  lecure  a  place  for  infants  in  the  gofpel  church, 
that  he  fcems  willing  to  pafs  over  the  real  bleffings  con- 
tained in  the  promife,  and  fix  on  one  which  by  his  own 
reafoning  they  were  already  in  poiTeflion  of.  After 
holding  the  word  ehiUIreti  in  a  ftate  of  torture,  until  it 
has  paired  three  ftages  of  dilcuffion,  he  thinks  he  has 
gained  the  important  point  ;  i.  e.  "  That  infants  are 
placed  in  the  fame  relation  to  baptifm,  as  they  were  of 
old  to  circumcilion."  (p.  71,  72.] 

What  an  admirable  comment  upon  the  apoftIe*s 
words  !  Here  were  a  number  of  perfons  pricked  in  the 
heart,  and  crying  out  in  diftrefs,  What Jhallive  do  P  They 
are  told  for  their  comfort,  that  ihe  promife  is  to  ycu  and 
to  your  children  ;  by  which  they  were  to  underftand  that 
they  were  placed  in  the  fame  relation  to  baptifm  as  they 
were  of  old  to  circumcifion  J  What  confolation  this 
muft  be  to  a  heart  throbbing  under  the  pangs  of  con- 
\i£\ion,  or  inquiring  with  the  ardor  of  a  new-born  fouV 
after  duty  !  But  we  will  leave  Mr.  Edwards  for  the 
prefent. 

Let  us  now  hear  the  conclufion  of  the  facrcd  hifto- 
jian.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  -werd  were  haf- 
tized  J  and  the  fame  day  there  were  added  uritj  them  about 
three  thoufatid  fouls.  We  alk,  To  whom  were  thefe  con- 
verts added  Was  it  to  the  old  Jewilh  church  .''  or 
lo  the  new  gofpel  church  .''  for  they  both  exilted  at 
this  time  ;  but  in  total  oppoiition  to  each  other.  We 
only  wilh  that  confcience  may  make  the  decilion.  This 
folemn  and  interefting  account  clofeswith  thefe  words  i 
ylnd  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily,  fuch  as  Jljould  be 
faved.  What  church,  we  alk  again,  was  this  I  Was  it 
the  old  j)erfecuting  Jewifli  church  ?  no  one  we  think 
can  pcfiibly  believe  it.  No  j  they  were  taken  from 
that,  and  added  to  the  Chriftian  church.  We  are  con- 
fident that  there  cannot  be  an  inftance  produced 
of  a  fingle  aft  of  Chriftian  fellowlhip  between  thefe 
two  churches.  How  often  in  the  book  of  Afts,  that 
authentic  hiftory  of  the  primitive  Chrifiians,  do  we 


APPENDIX. 


215 


the  leaders  of  the  gofpcl  church  dragged  before  the 

mlts  of  the  Jewifh  church,  and  by  their  orders  beaten 
iud  imprifoned  ;  and  ftraitly  charged  to  Ipeak  no 
more  in  the  name  of  Jefus  !  If  both  were  the  church  of 
Chrift,  his  kingdom  was  certainly  divided  againft  itfelf  i 
and  our  Lord  has  told  us  the  fate  of  fuch  a  kingdom. 
The  papal  and  proteftant  churches  were  never  more 
at  variance  in  the  hotteft  times  of  perfecution  than 
thefe  two  churches  were,  until  the  gofpel  difpenfatioii 
was  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gentiles. 

It  may  poffibly  be  faid  that  thefe  arguments  only 
prove  the  corruptions  that  were  in  that  church,  but  do 
not  affect  its  real  ftate.  To  determine  whether  an  old 
houfe  ought  to  be  taken  down,  in  order  to  build  a  new 
one  in  its  room,  it  would  not  be  necelTary  to  know 
what  it  once  was,  but  only  to  examine  it  in  its  prefent 
ftate  ;  and  fiiould  a  few  pieces  of  timber  be  faved 
from  tliis  old  wreck,  and  put  into  the  new  building, 
we  fhoukl  hardly  fuppofe  any  perion  would  fay  it  was 
the  fame,  the  very  ianie  houfe.    The  application  is  eafv. 

hi  order  to  bring  this  argument  to  a  dofe,  we  aik. 
Were  not  the  principal  oppolers  and  perfecutors  of  Jeius 
Chrift  and  his  followers,  officers  and  members  of  the 
Jewiih  church  ?  Were  they  not  conlidered  ai  the 
time  to  be  in  regular  fianding  ?  To  exemplify  the 
queftion,  we  will  {'ele£t  one  only  ,  it  fhall  be  the  great 
apoftle  of  the  Gentiles.  Was  he  not  a  member  of  the 
Jewilli  church,  at  the  very  time  he  was  perfecuting 
the  poor  faints  of  Jefus,  and  haling  ihein  both  mea 
and  women  to  prifon  ? 

The  account  which  Paul  has  given  of  himfelf  vjill 
probably  fatisfy  us  on  this  point.  In  a  ftatement  which, 
he  made  to  the  Galatians  refpeftlng  his  call  to  preach, 
he  fays  ;  But  I  certify  you,  brethren,  ikat  the  gofpel  luhich 
was  preached  of  me,  is  iiot  after  man  ;  for  I  neither  received 
it  of  jnan,  neither  luas  I  taught  it,  but  by.  the  re-iMiolion  of 
Jefus  Chrifi.  For  ye  have  heard  fvf  wy  convetfatim  in  time 
pajl,  in  THE  Jews'  rei.igioh  •,,  ho-w  that  beyond  mtajure 
I  perficuted  the  church  of  God,  and  wafied  it.  And  prof  ted 
in  the  feivs*  religion  above  tnany  my  equals  in  mine  onvn 
nation  ;  being  more  exceedingly  zealous  of  the  traditions  of 
my  fathers.  jSwX— But  pray,  Paul,  let  us  interrupt  your 


216 


APPENDIX. 


narrative  a  moment,  that  you  nuy  explain  yourfclf. 
You  have  twice  mentioned  the  Jews'  religion,  as  if  it 
were  diftiuift  from  the  relij^ion  of  Jefus  Chrifi:.  You 
have  alio  laid,  that  you  perfcuUcJ a>u!  iLwfici!  the  church 
OF  GOD.  You  moft  certainly  do  noc  mean  the  old  Jew- 
i{h  churchj  for  if  we  undediand  you,  you  were  adliug 
in  concert  with.  that.  "  My  manner  of  life  from  my 
youth,  which  was  at  the  firft  among^mine  own  nstic 
at  Jerufalem,  know  all  the  Jews  ;  who  knew  me  frcn 
the  beginning,  (if  they  would  teftify)  that  after  the 
STRAiTEST  SECT  OF  OUR  RELIGION,  I  lived  a  pharifee/' 
And  in  my  zeal  for  that  church,  I  verily  thought  with 
myfelf,  tliat  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary  to  the 
name  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth.  Which  thing  I  alfo  did  in 
Jerufalem  ;  and  many  of  the  faints  did  I  fhut  up  in 
prifon."  I  did  not  do  it  however,  in  a  riotous  mann . . 
without  the  concurrence  of  my  brethren,  but  "  hani;:^ 
received  aiitho  ity  from  ike  thief  priejis.  And  when  they 
were  put  to  death,  I  gave  my  voice  againft  them.  And 
puniflied  them  oft  in  every  fynagogue,  and  compelled 
them  to  blafpheme  :  and  being  fixceedingly  mad  agaiml 
them,  I  perfecuted  them  tven  unto  ilrange  cities."* 
"  But  when  it  pleafed  God,  wii,o  feparated  me  from  my 
mother's  womb,  and  culled  me  by  his  grare,  to  reveal  his 
Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  him  among  the  hea- 
then ;  immediately  I  conferred  net  witii  flelh  anci 
blood — but  I  went  into  Arabia  and  returned  again  to 
Damafcus.  And  was  unknown  by  face  unto  the 
churches  of  Judea,.  which  were  i/i  Chrijl  but  they  had 
heard  only,  that  he  who  perfecuted  us  in  times  paft, 
flow  preacheth  the  faith  luhich  ttue  he  dtjlroyed.  And 
they  glorified  God  in  nie."j-  . 

In  this  man,  before  his  converfion,  we  have  a  com- 
plete fpecimen  of  the  general  temper  of  the  Jewifh 
church,  during  nrofl  of  the  time  the  gcfpel  was  con- 
tinued among  them.  This  will  be  evinced  by  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  froiTi  one  of  his  epiftles.  "  For  ye, 
brethren,  became  followers  of  the  churches  of  Gcd, 
which  in  Judea  are  in  Chrifi  Jefus  :  for  ye  have  alfo 
fuflcred  like  things  of  your  civn  ccuntrymen,  even  as  they 


•  Afts  ixvi.  4,  J,  9,  10,  II, 


f  Gal  i,  II— 17  arjd  as— 24- 


APPENDIX. 


217 


}  jve  of  the  yfws  :  who  both  killtd  the  Lord  Jefus, 
•  and  their  own  prophets,  and  ha\e  perfecuted  us;  and 
theyphafe  not  God,  and  are  contrary  to  all  men  "* 
From  the  evidence  ariling  from  the  fa^ts  which  hare 
}  been  briefly  detailed  in  the  preceding  pages,  the  follow- 
I  ing  conclufion  irrefillibly  forces  itfclf  upon  the  mind, 
v',;:.  That  the  gofpel  church  is  not  a  continuation  of  t^ie 
old  Jewilli  church,  but  totally  diftinct  :  That  it  dif- 
fers elleivially  in  its  conftitution  ;  in  the  qualifications 
required  in  order  to  memberfliip  ;  in  its  vifible  form, 
tliat  being  national,  this  being  (elected  and  particular  : 
That  the  predictions  and  declaration  of  the  prophets,  cf 
Jefus  Chrilt  and  his  apoftles,  all  prefent  it  to  us  as  a  dif- 
titicl  body  :  That  {a.iEls  which  cannot  be  controverted, 
determine  that  they  never  were  united,  althoLJgh  they 
both  actually  exifted  at  the  fame  time     but  that  tiie 
latter  was  conftantly  oppoied  and  psrfecutec  by  the 
former. 

Hence  we  conclude,  that  as  the  two  churches  are 
every  way  fo  diftincV,  the  right  of  infants  to  member- 
fliip in  the  Jewilh  church  is  infufficicnt  to  fufrain  their 
claim  to  niemberlliip  in  the  gofpel  church.  If  they 
have  any  claim  to  memberfliip  under  the  goipel  dif- 
pcnfation,  it  mult  be  founded  in  the  fpecial  provilions 
of  this  dilpenfation,  and  not  inferred  from  any  thing  in 
the  former.  "  The  truth/'  fpjthDr.  Em.mons,  "io,  we 
mull  learn  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  under  the 
prefent  difpenfafion  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  from 
the  difpenfation  icfeif,  which  enjoins  all  the  peouliar 
duties  which  belong  to  it.  If  believers  are  now  to 
baptize  their  children, — it  is  not  becaufe  they  were 
once  obliged  to  circumcife  them."f 

If  thefe  things  are  true,  as  we  verily  believe  they  are, 
we  beftcch  our  brethren  not  to  fliut  their  eyes  againft 
the  light,  and  rejcdt  them.  O  that  the  great  Head  of 
the  church  would  enlighten  each  of  us  more  perfect'y 
in  the  knowledge  of  his  will  ! 


*  :  ThclT.  iL  14,  15. 


t  RspJy  to  Dr.  Hemniiuway. 


218 


APPENDIX. 


SECTION  IV. 

Str't&ures  on  the  Rev.  Peter  EdwaHds's  '<  Candid 
Reafons  for  rensttncing  the  Principles  of  Antipadohap' 
tifm." 

This  gentleman  has  been  feveral  tinies  named 
in  the  preceding  pages,  and  the  book  now  before  us 
referred  to. 

My  defign  is  only  to  make  ftri(Etures.  It  cannot 
therefore  be  expefted  that  I  fhould  follow  hir.;  in  all 
his  long-laboured  fyllogifms,  nor  attempt  to  unravel  all 
his  intricate  windings.  This  talk  is  rendered  the  lefs 
neceflary,  as  Dr.  Jenkins's  very  able  reply  is  before  the 
public.  In  this,  a  candid  reader  will  difcover  much 
folid  learning,  and  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  fubjeft 
difcufled. 

In  writing  thefe  ftri<rtures,  I  have  no  wilh  to  detract 
from  Mr.  Edwards's  "  hard-earned  fame,"  nor  to  fpeak 
diminutively  of  his  abilities  as  a  polennic  writer.  I  wifh 
I  could  in  juftice  acknowledge  him  to  be  a  fair  and 
honourable  difputant.  Whether  my  judgment  is  warp- 
ed by  prejudice,  is  not  for  me  to  fay  ;  but  his  reafonings 
have  ever  appeared  to  me  extremely  fophiftical  and  un- 
candid.  The  reafons  on  which  I  found  this  opinion 
•will  be  feen  in  the  courfe  of  thefe  animadverfions. 

The  reader  is  alfo  notified,  that  no  attempt  will  ht 
made  in  the  enfuing  pages  to  vindicate  Mr.  Booth,  as 
the  writer  has  never  feen  his  book  to  which  Mr.  Ed- 
wards has  replied.  Nothing  therefore  will  be  noticed, 
only  what  implicates  our  fentlments  generally. 

Mr.  Edwards,  in. his  introduction,  gives  what  he  calls 
*•  a  fair  ftatement  of  the  queftion."  This  ftatement  is 
divided  into  five  Thefes.  His  firft:  Thefts  we  fhould  not 
object  to,  had  he  conducted  the  difpute  according  to 
the  principles  there  ftated.  It  ftands  thus — Thefts  1. 
«'  That  we  fet  afide  all  thofe  things  about  which  we  are 
agreed,  and  fix  our  attention  to  that  only  on  which  a 
difference  of  opinion  may  fall."    "  Secondly,  that  this 


APPENDIX. 


219 


:ifterence  be  ftated  in  a  manner  the  moft  plain  and 
nniple."  The  reader  will  judge,  whether  Mr.  Ed- 
wards has  not  violated  the  firft  of  thefe  rules,  in  the 
mo  ft  flagrant  manner.  Has  he  not  brought  up  the 
fubjecl  of  female  communisn,  and  employed  it  as  a  main 
argument  againft  the  Baptifls  ?  Yea,  the  very  argu- 
ment, which  he  boaftingly  tells  us  that  he  has  ufed 
with  fo  much  dexterity,  as  to  filence  every  Baptift  he 
has  met  with  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  And  yet  this  is 
a  fubject  that  we  are  entirely  agreed  in.  What  has 
I  female  communion  to  do  with  infant  baptifm  ?  Nothing 
at  all. 

\      Thefts  2. — "  Antipscdobaptifts  confider  thofe  perfons 
as  meet  fubjedls  of  baptifm,  who  are  fuppofed  to  pof- 
fefs  faith  in  Chrift,  and  thofe  only.  Pjedobaptifts 
agree  with  them  in  this,  that  believers  are  proper  fub- 
;  jefts  of  baptifm,  but  deny  that  fuch  only  are  proper 
I  fubjefts.    They  think,  that,  together  with  fuch  believ- 
;  ing  adults,  ivho  have  r.ot  yet  been  baptized^  their  infants 
j  have  a  right  to  baptifm  as  well  as  their  parents."  The 
I  laft  part  of  this  pofition  implies  what  is  not  true,  which 
I  will  be  feen  in  our  remarks  upon  the  next. 
I      Thfts  'S. — "  From  this  view  of  the  fentiments  of 
each,  it  appears  that  both  parties  are  agreed  on  the 
article  of  aduit  baptifm,  which  muft  therefore  be  fet 
afide,  as  a  matter  entirely  out  of  difpute  ;  for  it  can 
anlwer  no  good  purpofe  for  one  to  prove  what  the  other 
will  not  deny."    An  incautious  reader  by  this  ftate- 
ment  would  be  led  to  fuppofe,  that  the  two  denomina- 
tions had  the  fame  views  of  adults  being  proper  fub- 
jefls  of  baptifm.    But  it  is  evident  that  we  differ  widely 
on  this  fubjeft.    It  is  not  true,  that  Pxdobaptifts  allow 
adult  baptifm,  only  under  certain  limitations.  They 
indeed  admit  fuch  as  have  never  been  baptized  in  in- 
fancy, when  they  come  to  be  believers.    But  why  do 
they  ?   Evidently  becauie  they  could  never  baptize 
them  before.    Their  own,  or  their  parents'  confent  was 
wanting.    But  could  they  carry  their  fentiments  into 
complete  effefl,  it  would  put  an  entire  end  to  believers* 
baptifm  ;  for  they  would  baptize  every  infant  foon  after 
it  was  born  \  nor  would  they  allow  them  ever  after. 


220 


APPENDIX. 


fliould  they  become  believers,  to  be  baptized  agreeably 
to  their  own  confciences,  upon  the  pain  of  being  de- 
nounced as  Anabaptifts.  This  difference  of  fentiment 
on  this  point  cannot  be  denied,  without  denying  an 
obvious  truth.  It  is  therefore  but  mere  evafion,  to  fay, 
that  we  are  agreed  on  this  point,  and  that  they  hold  to 
believers'  bapt'ifm  as  well  as  we.  They  certainly  would 
exterminate  it  out  of  the  world  if  they  could. 

But  what  is  Mr.  Edwards  making  this  preparation 
for  ?  The  anfwer  is  eafy.  It  is  to  get  rid  of  that  bur- 
den of  proof  ariiing  from  thofe  qualifications,  indifcrim- 
inately  required  in  order  to  baptifm,  with  which  his 
denomination  have  conftantly  been  prelTed  by  the  Bap- 
tifts. 

We  fhall  not  at  prefent  objecl  to  his  ftatement  in 
the  clofe  of  this  polition,  viz,  "  The  fimple  queftion 
■which  remains  to  be  decided  is  this,  Are  infants  fit  fub- 
je^ls  of  baptifm,  or  are  they  not  ?  On  tliis  queftion  tlie 
whole  turns.  The  Pa^dobaptifts  affirm,  and  the  Anti- 
paeilobaptifts  deny."  But  we  fiir.ll  take  the  liberty  to 
difprove  their  fitnefs,  by  urging  their  want  of  thofe  qual- 
ifications required  by  the  initiimion,  without  alking  iNIr. 
EdwarUs's  confcnt. 

Thcfs  4'. — "  The  nmple  queftion  being  as  r.e  have  now 
ftated  it,  Are  infants  fit  fubjeas  of  baptifm,  or  are  they 
not  i*  it  v/ill  clearly  follow,  that  all  thofe  places  which 
relate  to  believers'  baptifm,  can  prove  nothing  on  tlie 
fide  of  the  Eaptifts  \  and  the  reafon  is,  they  have  no 
relation  to  the  queftion."  No,  Mr.  Edwards,  we  fhall 
not  confent  to  this.  You  might  very  eafily  indeed  beat 
us  all  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  if  we- v/ould  be  fo  foolilh 
as  to  confent  to  let  you  firft  lie  our  hands.  But  in  vain 
is  ihe  fiicre  fprend  in  ihe  Jight  of  any  bird.  You  alk,  "  Are 
infants  fit  fubje£ts  of  baptifm  ?"  How  are  we  to  judge 
of  the  fitnefs  of  a  fubjeft  any  otherwife  than  by  the 
qualifications  required  by  the  inftitution  .''  No,  no,  fay 
you,  thefe  all  refpe<Sl  adults,  and  therefore  are  irrelevant 
to  the  fubjeft.  Allow,  if  you  pleafe,  that  thefe  refped 
adults  only,  and  will  not  this  conclufion  inevitably  fol- 
low, that  none  but  adults  were  to  be  baptized  ? 


APPENDIX. 


221 


*  "Kthe  qualifications  indefinitely  required  by  the  in- 
ftitution  of  baptifm,  (I  fay  imlifnitely,  becaufe  the  fcrip- 
nires  give  us  no  idea  of  one  kind  of  qualifications  for 
adults,  and  another  for  iiifants)  if  thefe  are  to  form  no 
part  of  the  rule  by  which  we  are  to  judge  of  ihc^iiefs 
of  infants,  what  are  we  to  judge  by  ?  Why  truly,  Mr. 
Edwards  has  furnifhed  us  wit^i  a  very  compendious 
naethod"  indeed.  V/'e  mufi:  go  back  almoft  two  thou- 
fand  years  before  the  iiiftitution  of  baptifm  cxifled,  and 
examine  another  inftitutioii  every  waj  different  in  its  na- 
ture, mode,  and  defign,  and  belonging  to  another  church 
equally  different  from  the  Ciirlftian  church  ;  and  upon 
this  we  are  to  mnke  up  our  judgment  refpefting  thu 
fitnefs  of  infants  for  a  New  Teflament  inftitution  !  P.Iufl: 
not  a  man  have  a  front  like  brafs,  who  ca  i  charge  his 
opponents  with  fophiitry,  while  he  himfelf  is  guilty  of 
fuch  management  as  this,  to  keep  men  from  feeing  the 
truth  ?  It  is  believed,  that  there  is  not  another  fubjedl 
in  the  v/orld^on  wliich  men  would  reafonfo  inconclui'ive- 
ly.  Were  a  difpute  to  arife  concerning  the  right  of  citi- 
zenihip  in  the  United  States,  how  fhoald  we  determine 
the  quelHdn  ?.  Should  we  determine  it  by  the  confti- 
tution  of  Great-Britain,  or  by  the  conftitution  of  the 
United  States  ?  AVe  think  there  would  be  but  one 
opinion  in  this  cafe,  /.  e.  that  it  muft;  be  determined  by 
the  conftitution  under  which  we  now  live.  Whv  fliouid 
we  not  determine  the  qualificj^tions  for  an  inftitution  of 
the  gofpel  in  the  fame  way  ? 

Mr.  Edwards's  fifth  Thefts  is  a  mere  recapitulation 
of  the  preceding  ;  therefore  it  is  thought  uuneccliary  to 
ftate  it. 

We  fhall  now  proceed  to  his  ftrtement  of  the  argu- 
ments which  the  Baptifts  bring  againll  infant  bapufni. 
«*  Of  thcfe,"  he  tells  us,  "  there  are  two  only."  If  he 
had  allowed  us  to  fpeak  for  ourfelvcs,  it  is  more  than 
poffible  we  might  have  rtiuftered  up  one  or  two  more. 
But  what  are  the  two  which  he  allows  us  to  bring  ? 

Firft,  "  A  perfon  ivho  has  a  right  to  a  pfstivc  injlitution 
mufi  he  exprcfsly  nietitioned  as  having  that  right ;  hut  itfant^ 
Hre  not  fo  mentioned,  therefore  they  have  not  that  right  J' 

This  argument  he  fuppofes  requires  that  exprefs 
mention  be  made  in  the  fcripturcs  of  the  baptifm  of 


APPENDljr. 


infants.  This  he  fays,  is  « Sfflluniag,  contrafted,  faffb." 
"  It  is  very  aiTuming,  becsufe  it  feems  to  didlate  to  the 
ever  bleflcd  God  in  v-'hat  manner  he  ought  to  fpeak  to 
his  creatures.  Since  it  is  no  where  contained  in  bis  word, 
and  he  knows  heft  how  to  communicate  his  mind  to 
men,  it  little  becomes  fuch  creatures  as  \ve  are  to  lay 
down  rules  by  which  hfe  fliall  proceed."  Is  it  not  X 
little  njfumlng  for  Mr.  Edwards  to  infift  upon  out  re^. 
ceiving  and  approving  a  practice  which  he  allows  not 
to  be  conla'med  in  the  word  of  God  !  Reader,  paufe  a 
moment,,  and  reflect  upon  this  ««  precious  confeffion  " 
If  you  are  a  Baptiit,  will  you  not  feel  more  thankful 
than  ever,  that  the  fentiments  you  prafHfe  are  moft 
plainly  contained  in  God's  word  ?  Will  not  Mr.  Ed- 
wards's new  friends  blufh  for  this  unguarded  conceffion, 
and  wifli  he  had  been  a  little  more  careful  ?  He  adds, 
«  it  is  very  contradVed,  becaufe  it  fuppofes  we  cannot 
underftand  what  God  fays,  but  when  he  fpeaks  to  us  in 
one  particular  way."  No  Sir,  you  miftake  :  it  fuppofes 
we  cannot  underftand  him  when  he  does  not  fpeak  at 
all.  For  you  will  pleafe  to  remember,  you  have  juft 
{'aid,  it  is  no  ivhere  contained  in  his  ivord.  And  this  is 
the  only  medium  through  v^hich  he  has  fpoken  to  us 
refpedting  pofitive  inlHtutions.  But, 

•«  It  is  very  falfe  :  becaufe  (to  wave  all  other  inftan- 
ce3,  and  fix  on  one  only)  a  fubjeft  is  admitted  to  a  pofi- 
tive inftitute,  and  that  axlmi{Ron  is  according  to  truth, 
and  fo  held  and  pra6lifed  by  all  who  ufe  Chriftian  rites, 
■when  there  is  no  exprefs  law  or  example  to  fupport  it 
in  all  the  v/ord  of  God.  It  is  the  cafe  of  women  to 
which  I  allude,  and  their  admiflion  to  the  Lord's 
table." 

This  is  Mr.  Edwards's  knock-down  argument,  "with 
which  he  has  fo  often  vanquifiied  the  Baptifts.  He 
has  fpent  twelve  pages  in  attempting  to  prove  that  there 
is  no  explicit  warrant  for  female  commtmion  ;  and 
therefore  that  it  ftands  upon  the  fame  footing  of  infant 
baptifm.  His  meaning  is,  that  the  right  of  infants  to 
baptifm  is  equally  plain,  and  as  well  fiipported  by  the 
fcriptures,  as  the  right  of  females  to  communion.  But 
he  has  unhappily  deftroyed  his  argument  by  his  own 
Rttcrnvnt.    For  he  fays,  female  communion  *'  is  hctd 


APPENDIX. 


pr:itt  'fed  by  all  ivho  ufe  Chrljlian  riUsJ*    If  infant 

.ptii'in  were  eqii.iliy  as  plain,  what  reafon  can  be  al- 
ii,Tied  for  its  not  h^.»ing  as  univerlally  admitted  ?  He  is 
uiiJoiibtedlv  correit  lu  this,  that  no  Chriitian  feit  who 
have  admitted  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  fupper, 
h;ive  difaUo.ved  the  right  of  females.  It  is  equally 
certain,  that  f-oin  the  Hrft  mention  ot  intant  baptifm  in 
tcc;efiiirtical  hiftory,  it  has  met  with  oppofition-  This 
oppofuion  iias  not  Ijeen  made  by  thoie  v.-ho  profeflei 
to  be  governed  by  the  decrees  of  popes  aod  councils  , 
but  fach  as  profeffed  to  cake  the  word  of  God  for  their 
guide  in  all  matters  of  religion.  What  rational  account 
can  be  given  for  the  oppoiition  made  to  iniant  baptiun 
from  time  immemorial  to  the  prefenr,  wilile  females 
have  all  this  time  remained  in  the  unmolefted  enjoy- 
ment of  communion  ;  unlefs  it  be,  that  the  latter  is 
clearly  eftablilhed  in  the  New  Teftament,  while  no  evi- 
dence can  be  found  for  the  former. 

Thofe  who  deny  infant  baptifm,  have  undoubtedif 
the  fame  tender  afFedtion  for  their  children  as  thole 
who  praftife  it  ;  nor  can  we  admit  that  they  feel  lefs 
concerned  for  their  eternal  falvation.  Hence  nothinj^', 
hut  the  want  of  fcriptnre  to  fupport  it,  leads  the;n  to 
deny  its  validity. 

We  will  now  take  the  liberty  to  vary  Mr,  Ed  .>.'ar Js's 
third  Tkefify  and  put  female  cofhinunion  in  tlie  place  of 
mdutt  baptifm,  and  he  and  his  friends  will  then  fee  the 
full  force  of  his  argument. 

Thefts  3. — "  From  this  view  of  the  fentimentE  of  each, 
it  appears  that  both  parties  are  agreed  in  the  article  of 
fetnale  communion^  which  muft  therefore  be  fet  ailde,  aa 
a  matter  entirely  out  of  difpute  :  for  it  can  ani\ver  no 
good  purpofe  for  one  to  prove  what  the  other  will  not 
deny.'"'    Very  well  :  then  here  we  will  leave  it. 

Argument  2. — ^The  fecond  argument  which  Mr.  Ed- 
wards allows  the  Baptifts  to  bring  againft  the  baptifm 
of  infants,  he  exprefles  as  follows  : 

**  The  fcripiuns  require  faith  and  repentatice  as  rcquiftte 
U  baptifm,  but  as  infants  cannot  have  thcfe,  they  are  not 
pruper  fubje3s  cf  baptifm.  Infants,  fay  the  Baptifls,  cannot 
kd'^tye,  ejnnst  yipint  ;  and  none f&i^u/d  be  baptized  -without 


224. 


APPENDIX. 


"  The  mofl  expeditious  way,  f.iys  Mr.  Edwards,  of 
(^ffro-jitig  this  argument  is  this.  They  fay  the  fcrlptures 
roquire  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm.  I  alk 
of  whom  >  The  anfwer  tniiji  be  of  adults  ;  for  the  fcrip- 
lurcs  never  require  them  of  infants  in  order  to  any 
ihing."  My  Baptift  brethren  !  do  you  not  tremble 
iir  tlie  fate  of  your  argument,  fmce  it  has  fallen  into 
the  ha:)ds  of  fuch  an  ApoUyon  But  how  is  he  going 
ro  work  to  t.V?;rv  it  !  Wliy  by  telling  you  that  all  the 
cjr.aliiicat^u.  k  re r,;, 'red  by  the  inftitution,  have  refpeiSt 
ti''}' to  :!  NC'v  propcriion  of  the  candidates  for 

.  -  .  tliac  no  qualifications  at  all  are  re- 

iiuircd  of  far  tbe  ,c;rcater  part. 

Mow  does  'Jlr.  Edv/ards  prove  that  the  fcriptures  do 
ticit  ie."jLi're  faith  and  repentance  of  all  who  are  to  bt 
.  'n  un  J  :o  br.ptifni  ?  He  does  it  in  this  way,  by  ad- 
-^  ••1,,  u  ^vclrd  adults.  But  it  muft  be  remembered, 
tl.r.t  the  fcriptures  do  not  mention  either  adults  or  in- 
fants but  prefcribe  thefe  qualifications  generally  and 
without  .ai}- exoeption.  We  fh all  therefore  infift,  that 
the  wr.nt  of  thefe  qualifications  muft  forever  bar  the 
cl^im  of  all  others  to  this  ordinance,  whether  adults  or 
infants.  'Vl  'ii  is  ground  we  fhall  by  no  means  give  up, 
until  it  fhall  be  fairly  proved,  that  either  Chrill  or  his 
apoflles  did  adtually  admit  perfons  to  baptifn:.,  who 
made  no  profcfii' n  of  faith  and  repentance.  This 
lias  never  yet  been  done,  and  we  believe  it  never  can 
be.  However,  we  have  no  objection  to  any  perfon's 
making  the  attempt. 

Edwards,  after  working  over  this  argument,  fo  as 
to  fuit  himiclf  by  changing  and  diminiihing  the  force 
cf  the  rarjor  prnpoiition,  at  length  declares  it  "  a  glar- 
ing jlphif/u.^'  But  iii  what  does  the  fophiftry  confii't  ? 
In  his  own  management,  and  in  nothing  elfe.  The 
flrfl;  ftatement  re.'.da  thus  ;  "  The  fcripcures  require 
faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  bapiifni "  The 
meaning  is  generally  and  without  any  exception. 
When  altered  by  Mr.  Edwards,  it  Hands  thus  : — ♦<  The 
fcriptures  require  iaitli  and  repentance  of  adults,  in 
order  to  baptilm."  It  is  this  addition  alone  which 
can  poflibly  expofe  the  argument  to  the  charge  of 
foohifiry.  Place  the  argument  upon  its  native  ground, 
ai.d  it  will  ftand  thus  : 


APPENDIX. 


225 


'  The  fcriptures  require,  in  r.H  perfjnty  faicli  and 
■  tanc?  as  reqiiifite  to  baptifm  •■,  but  fonie  perfons 
■hot  fsith  and  repentance  :  therefore,  all  impeni- 
whether  adults  or  infants,  are  not  proper  fubjeiTts 

viptifm."  The  reader  will  determine  fop-  himfelf, 
wiiich  party  is  juftly  chargeable  with  fophiftryi 

After  altering  the  arguinent  35  above  Jefcribed, 
Mr.  Edwards  goes  on  to  prove  it  falfe.  We  will  now 
briefly  examine  his  proof.  He  propofes  "  firll  t6  fho\y 
that  the  argument  is  entirely  fillacious  ;  fecond,  point 
out  wherein  its  fallacy  confifts."  "  1.  Of  the  fallacy 
of  thi.^  argument.  'I  he  principle  of  it  is,  that  infants 
are  excluded  from  baptifm,  becaufe  fometliing  is  faid  of 
baptifm  which  will  not  agree  to  infants.  To  fee  there- 
fore the  tendency  of  this  argument  whether  it  wiR 
prove  on  the  fide  of  truth  or  error,  I  will  try  its  opera- 
tion on  tliefe  four  particulaj  s." 

1.  "On  the  cinumcifion  of  infants.  That  Infants 
were  circumcifed,  is  a  facV.  That  they  were  eircum- 
cifed  by  the  exprefs  coainumd  of  God,  is  a  proof  of 
rijht,  &c."  This  will  not  be  difputed  by  any  one.  But 
how  does  this  prove  the  argument  of  the  Baptiits  to  be 
falfe  ?  Wily  in  this  way,  «  circumci'ion,  as  it  was  a 
folemn  entering  into  the  church  of  God,  did  lix  an  ob- 
ligation on  the  circumcifed,  to  conform  to  the  laws  and 
ordinances  of  that  church."*  How  is  this  proved 
From  Gal.  v.  3.  "  Every  man  luro  is  circumciftd  is  a 
debtor  to  do  ihi  ivbsle  la-w."  What  is  the  inference 
Here  it  follows  in  Mr.  Edwards's  own  words  ;  "  Then 
it  is  clear,  there  was  foiaethtng  faid  of  circumcifion 
which  did  no  more  agree  to  intant3j  than  if  it  had 
been  faid.  Repent  and  be  baptized."  Suppofmg,  Mi\ 
Edward.-!,  we  Ihould  retort  a  little  of  your  logic  upon 
yourfelf,  and  affirm,  that  when  the  apoftle  fays,  Ev<;rj 
man  ivh)  is  drcumcifcd  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  "ivkole  Livj^ 
he  murt  mean,  every  adult  :  "  for  the  fcriptures  never 
require  fuch  ot  dlence  of  infants  in  order  to  any  thing." 
Now,  Sir,  if  your  logic  is  good,  your  argumem  is  good 

•  It  wcul  I,  we  believe, be  very  difficult  to  df fcribe  the  great/c/*«n.-^j. 
which  an  infant  of  eight  Jayb  oid  difcovcred,  at  this  time  of  ii»  entrance 
iuto  the  chbrcb, 

■W  2 


for  nothing.  For  the  fame  mode  of  reafoiilng  which 
you  have  adopted  to  deftroy  our  argument,  will  dein  uy 
your  own.  But  I  mean  to  (how  its  fallacy  in  2\30ther 
way. 

To  the  above  inference  our  author  adds,  «  In  this 
refpeft,  baptifm  and  circumcifion  are  upon  a  level ;  lor 
there  is  fomcthing  fa;d  concerning  both,  which  will  by 
no  means  agree  to  infants.  Infants,  on  the  one  hand 
cannot  believe  and  repent  ;  and  thefe  are  connedcd 
with  baptifm  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  infants  cannot 
become  debtors  they  cannot  keep  the  law,  and  thefe 
are  connected  v.'itli  circumcifion."  If  I  fliould  reafon 
after  this  manner,  I  Hiould  expsQ.  to  be  roundly  charged 
with  fophiftry.  f<- Connetled  with  baptifm  j"  '■Uonne8td 
with  circumcifion,"  {z\s  Mr.  Edwards.  But,  Sir,  are 
they  connected  alike  }  Muft  not  every  perfon,  by  a 
moment's  reflection,  fee  that  they  are  totally  different  ? 
Baptifm  does  not  merely  "  fix  an  obligation"  to  believe 
and  repent  at  feme  future  period  ;  but  requires  a  pro- 
feflion  of  faith  and  repentance,  as  a  previous  qualifica- 
tion for  the  ordinance.  Circumcifion  did  not  require 
any  previous  obedience  to  the  law,  in  order  to  qualify  a 
perfon  for  that  rite.  The  utmoft  that  can  be  faid  of  it 
with  regard  even  to  fuch  adults  as  voluntarily  choofe 
it  for  themfelves  is,  that  they  thereby  made  themfelvcs 
debtors  to  do  the  whole  law.  The  apoftle's  meaning  is 
evidently  this,  that  thofe  who  ftill  infilled  upon  circum- 
cifion, as  that  was  one  of  the  firft  articles  of  the  legal 
<^ifpenfation,  could  not  be  fuppofed  to  have  embraced 
the  gofpel  and  if  they  depended  on  their  obedience 
to  the  law  for  juftification,  wliich  was  implied  in  their 
holding  to  circumcifion,  they  muft  then  confider  thenv- 
felves  debtors  to  do  the  whole  law.  But  can  it  be  fui>» 
pofed,  that  the  mere  act  of  circumcifion,  performed  on 
a  helplefs  infant,  without  his  knowledge  or  confent, 
fhould  make  him  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law  ?  It 
is  evident  Paul  had  nothing  of  this  in  view,  when  he 
circumcifed  Timothy.  I  do  not  think  it  conftituted 
him  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  But  had  he  chofen 
that  method  of  juftification  in  preference  tp  the  gofpel, 
rt  certainly  would. 


APPENDIX. 


9^1 


Duf  will  not  every  perfon  who  is  capable  of  reafoning 
i  -upon  a  lubjeft,  fee  a  wide  difference  between  qualijica- 
tkus  prevhujly  required  by  an  ordinance,  and  an  obligch- 
iiQit  jisccl  by  the  ordinance  itfelf  ?  The  great  Author  of 
being  fixes  at\,  obligation  upon  every  rational  creature 
as  foon  as  it  exifts,  to  love  and  obey  him.  But  he  re., 
quires  no  previous  exercifes  of  Ipve  and  obedience  in 
order  to  qualify  us  for  exiftenc?.  It  hence  appears  that 
the  two  cafes  ftated  by  Mr.  Edwards,  as  being  entirely 
fimilar,  "  and  upon  a  level,"  are  totally  unlike.  There- 
fore, until  it  can  be  made  out  that  qualifications  for  an 
ordinance,  and  fubfequent  duties  zT\{\ngfrom  it,  are  the 
fjme  thing,  we  muft  fet  down  Mr.  Edwards  as  a 
fophiftical  reafoner  !  But  the  whole  will  be  fubmitted, 
grgumentum  ad  judicium,  to  all  whom  it  may  concern.* 

Mr.  Edwards  next  argues  againft  the  general  require- 
ment of  faith  and  repentance,  from  the  "  baptifm  of 
Jefus  Chrift."  He  fuppofes  as  "  he  was  no  finner,  he 
could  have  no  repentance ;  and  fince  he  needed  no  fal- 
vation  from  fin,  he  could  not  hare  the  faith  of  God's 
^  elea." 

t  '  Are  there  any  Chrifkians  who  fuppofe  that  JefusChrift. 
W5S  baptized  for  prccifely  the  fame  reafons  as  thofe  by 
which  he  has  enjoined  the  duty  upon  his  people  ?  Or  in 
other  words,  whether  his  baptifm  fignified  the  fame- 
things  which  our's  does  ?  If  not,  his  argument  is  noth- 
jr-;  to  the  purpofe.  But  let  us  hear  Mr. Edwards's  own- 
explanation.  <'  With  regard  to  the  ufe  of  baptifm,"  faitl^ 
he,  "  I  confider  it  in  the  light  of  a  meati  of  grace,  and  I, 
view  it  in  the  fame  way  when  applied  to  infants."  (p, 
184.)  Does  Mr.  Edwards  fuppol'c  that  the  baptifm  of 
Chrift  was  a  mean  of  grace  to  him  ?  If  not,  it  muft 
certainly  be  very  different  from  the  baptifm  of  any 
other  perfon.  We  do  not  think  that  Jefus  Chrift  ftood 
in  neetl  of  any  fuch  mcafis  of  grace  as  infant  baptifrn, 
Hence  his  not  being  a  fubjcft  of  faith  and  repentance, 
cannot  with  any  fairnefs  be  urged  againft  the  general 
requirement  of  the  inftitution,  nor  be  pleaded  as  an 
ejccptioji  in  behalf  of  finful  creatures. 

•  The  reader  will  cxcufc  my  ufing  thefe  logicaj  terms, -wkoi  he  rtcel- 
kfti  i  fto)  retfoning  with  a  very  logical  man. 


228 


APPENDIX. 


Mr.  EdwarJs  draws  his  third  arp;ament  from  the 

faivation  of  hifants."  Thefc  he  prefumcs  are  faved  5 
and  faved  toD  without  either  faith  or  repentance. 

We  fufpeft  he  may  find  this  arj^ument  rather  unman- 
ageable. It  may  poflibly  take  a  greater  extent  of  lati- 
tude, and  fpread  much  wider  than  he  intended.  If  in- 
fants may  be  faved  without  faith  or  repentance,  (the 
qualifications  for  baptifm)  it  muft  be  plain  that  all  in- 
fants may  be  faved.  If  this  be  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  baptifm  of  fome  infants,  it  will  prove  equally  in 
favour  of  the  baptifm  of  all  infants,  whether  their  par- 
ents are  Chriuians,  heathens,  or  infidels,  unlefs  the 
poffibility  of  their  falvation  be  denied.  We  fee  but 
two  ways  (to  ufe  his  own  modefi:  language)  to  fave  his 
"  argument  from  perdition."  The  firfi:  is,  to  prove  that 
no  infants  will  be  faved,  but  fuch  as  defcend  from  be- 
lieving parents  :  or,  fccond,  to  extend  liis  practice  of 
binti^inr:  th.Mi  to  all  infants,  without  exception.  For 

::';-u  'i;  to  this  ordinance  U  to  be  fupported  upon 

f  \e  ;>;\".: .  '.  t y  of  their  falvation,  then  it  cannot  depend 
at  all  on  ihe  nioral  condition  of  tbeir  parents,  unlefs  their 
falvation  depends  on  that  hkewife,  which  it  woidd  be 
abfurd  to  pretend.  We  only  ;.dd,  if  they  may  be  faved, 
though  incapable  of  the  qualifications  required  by  the 
baptifmal  inftitution,  we  Ihould  certainly  fuppofe  their 
baptifm  might  be  alfo  omitted,  unlefs  that  be  thought 
of  more  ccnfequence  in  the  article  of  falvation  than  faith 
and  repentance. 

Mr.  Edwards's  fourth  and  laft  argument  to  prove 
that  the  Baptifts  reafon  fophiftically  wlieathey  infift  on 
a  profefljon  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm, 
5s  drawn  from  the  "temporal  fubfiflence  of  infants." 
He  endeavours  to  make  out  that  our  argument  goes  to 
prove,  that  infants  ought  to  be  left  to  itarve  to  death. 
His  reafoning  is  founded  on  Paul's  words  to  the  Thef- 
falonians  :  IVe  cymmnnded  you,  faith  the  apoftle,  if  any 
•would  not  ivork,  neither  Jhculd  he  eat. 

Our  argument,  as  ftated  by  Mr.  Edwards,  is,  that 
«  the  fcriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  as  requi- 
flte  to  baptifm  •,  but  as  infants  cannot  have  thefe,  they 
arc  not  proper  fubjssfts."    This  argument  fuppofes,  that- 


APPENDIX. 


229 


?.«;  infants  cnnnot  exhibit  the  fcriptiu'al  qualifications, 
tliev  are  not  to  blame  ;  neither;  are  they  injured  in  our 
view  in  not  being  admitted  to  I)aptifm.  But  the  cafe  of 
the  icHfiil  id'.er  is  every  way  different.  He  is  fuppofed 
to  polTcfs  fufficienc  ability  to  obtain  the  fomfnrtable 
luei'ns  of  fubdilence,  but  by  a  criminal  negligence  be- 
comes cb.argeable  to  the  church.  It  is  wonderful  to 
fee  what  this  do£trine  of  analogy  can  do  !  It  can  make 
fobjei5Vs  the  moft  antipodal,  appear  to  fland  in  perfedt 
harmony  ;  and  fuch  as  in  their  natm^e  are  every  way 
tinlike,  to  be  pevfedly  a)ia]ogous. 

By  the  preceding  ani.nadvorfions  it  will  be  feen  that 
Mr.  Edwards's  four  arguments,  when  weighed  in  an 
even  balance,  are  found  wanting.  It  needs  only  to 
remove  their  extraneous  parts,  and  they  appear  at  once 
wholly  irrelevant  to  the  rubie<5t.  The  argument  which 
lie  oppofes  does  not  of  iclelf  prove  againft  the  truth,  nor 
has  it  any  unfriendly  afpect  but  what  it  derives  from 
his  torturing  hand. 

His  next  attempt  is  to  (liow  wherein  the  fallity  of  this 
•rgument  confifts.  This,  he  informs  his  readers,  is  by 
our  placing  "one  thing  in  the  premifes,  and  another 
in  the,  concliifion.''  But  the  reader  man:  not  forget 
that  he  tlated  the  premifes,  and  made  the  conclufioii  to 
fuit  himfelf.  But,  wherein  do  they  difagree  ?  The 
fiaptifts,  he  fays,  place  adults  in  the  premifes,  arid  hijdiits 
in  the  conclufion.  This  is  not  true.  The  Baptifts 
make  the  premifes  general,  and  the  conclufion  general. 

But  let  us  inquire  whether  Mr.  Edwards  does  not, 
by  his  own  ftatement,  get  more  in  his  conclufion  from 
circiimcihon  than  can  be  found  in  the  premifes.  His 
argument  runs  thus  : — The  male  infants  of  Abraham  and 
his  pofterity,  were  by  God's  com  nand  to  be  cir- 
cumcifed.  What  is  his  conclufion  ?  Therefore  the  in- 
fants of  fuch  as  belong  to  the  Chriflrian  church,  both 
mnki  and  females,  are  to  be  baptized.  Has  Mr.  Edwards 
here  got  no  more  in  his  conclufion  than  is  found  in  his 
pren\il"es      "  O  fiiaiue,  where  is  thy  blufh  !" 

We  will  now  meet  Mr.  Edwards  upon  his  nrgumen- 
turn  ad  bominem,  and  fee  what  the  refult  will  be. 
Now,  faith  he,  to  make  the  argument  of  the  Baptius 


appi:ndix 


sonfiftent,  we  mufl:  place  infants  in  the  premifes  ac 
well  as  in  the  conclulion,  and  the  argument  will  itand 
thus  : — The  fcriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of 
infants  in  Order  to  baptifhi  ;  but  infants  have  not  faith> 
&c.  therefdre  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized." 

We  will  how  try  his  argument.  iNIr.  Edwards  fuf- 
tains  the  pUa  in  favour  of  the  baptifm  of  infants  both 
male  and  female,  from  the  covenant  of  circumciOon  ; 
but  by  that  covenant  no  female  infant  was  admitted  to 
circunicifion  j  therefore  no  female  infant  muft  be  ad- 
mitted to  baptifm. 

Again,  «  infants,  in  order  to  vifible  memberfhip^ 
were  the  fubje<Sks  of  a  religious  rite  for  ««  circumcif- 
ion  was  a  religious  rite  but  female  infants  were  not 
the  fubjetfls  of  that  religlcwis  rite,  therefore  female  ia- 
fants  vv  ere  not  admitted  to  metnberflilp  in  the  vifible 
church. 

iThus  we  fee,  that  Mr-  Edwards's  logic  will  prove  his 
owh  arguments  falfe,  and  exclude  female  infants  both 
from  baptifm  and  from  vilible  memberfliip  iu  the 
church.  It  is  impofllble  to  fupport  the  claim  of  femal* 
infants  to  baptifm  upoa  the  covcjiant  of  circumciuoo, 
without  getting  more  into  the  conclufion  than  can  b^ 
found  in  the  premifes.  This  may  not  be  ftigmati^ed 
a  "  glarilig  fophifm"  in  a  Pjedobaptift  i  but  it  will  bf 
remembered  what  Mr.  Edwards  has  faid  of  it  with  t^^ 
fped  to  the  Biptifts. 

We  will  now  fpend  a  fe-,v  minutes  in  exaaniniHg  Mf.» 
Edwards's     arguments  on  the  iide  of  infant  baptifm." 

"  Infant  baptiHnj  faith  he,  is  to  be  proved  in  th* 
fr.me  way  a&  female  communion  /.  e.  by  "  inference 
and  analogy."  Well>  go  on,  Mr.  Edwards,  and  inaka 
your  itatement.  «  In  the  firfk  pUca,  it  is  a  faft  ac- 
knowledged by  th^  Baptifts  thenifelyes,  that  infants 
were  at  an  early  period  coufvituted  raenibars  of  the 
church  of  God."  This,  SLr,  is  about  half  true.  No 
well  informed  Baptifl:  could  aiJmit  it  in  tiiis  un^jualified 
fenfe  ;  for  it  fuppofeq  that  infants,  females  as  well  a» 
males,  without  limitation  were  admitted  :  this  wants 
pf oof.   But,  proceed.    "  In  the  next  glace,  I  pro- 


*  Candid  Roaroas,  p  39. 


APPENDIX. 


231 


(^iice  proof,  that  they  have  a  right  to  be  fo  now  ;  and 
that  the  conftitution  of  Gocl  by  which  they  were  made 
fnembcrs,  has  not  been  altered  to  this  day."  Should  you 
fiicceed,  Sir,  in  this  attempt,  thefe  confequences  will  in- 
evitably follow.  1 .  That  circumcifion  is  ftill  in  force  ; 
Or,  that  the  conftitution  of  God,  which  exprefsly  en- 
joined circumcifion,  has  been  altered  ;  and  altered  too 
by  divine  authority,  fo  as  to  admit  of  baptifm  in  its 
toovn.  2.  If  this  conftitution  remains  unaltered,  female 
infants  have  no  place  in  it  :  for  they  were  neither  nam- 
ed nor  included  in  that  rite  by  which  you  tell  us  infants 
wore  admitted  to  "  vifible  memberfhip."  (p,  39.)  Have 
you  got  through  witli  your  ftatement.  Sir  ?  Not  wholly. 
Then  pleafe  to  proceed.  «•  In  the  laft  place,  I  fhall 
.*ny  down  this  dilemma,  which  will  conclude  the  whole 
biifinefs  ;  namely  : — As  infants,  by  a  divine  ttnalterahJt 
cnnjiituiiony  have  a  riglit  to  be  received  as  church  mem- 
bers, they  muft  be  received  either  with  baptifm  or 
without  it.  If  they  are  not  to  be  received  without 
l-.iptifm,  "then  the  confequence  is,  that  they  muft  be 
baptized,  bccaufe  they  muft  be  received."  Infants  muft 
be  received,  and  therefore  muft  be  baptized,  and  they 
tnuft  be  baptized  becnufe  they  muft  be  received.  The 
potency  of  this  reafcning  no  man  will  dare  to  difpute. 

This  dilemma  viewed  at  a  diftance,  has,  to  before,  a 
frij^htful  afpecl  ;  but  upon  a  nearer  infpeftion,  its  for- 
mid.ible  appearance  vanilhes  av.-«y.  The  fiim  of  it  is 
this.  That  jf  infants  have  a  right  by  the  divine  injlitutian  to 
memberjhip  in  the  Chriflinn  church,  then  they  muji  be  ad- 
mitud  according  to  that  injVitution. 

If  Mr.  Edwards,  by  this  unalterable  conftittition,  means 
the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  as  he  moft  cenainly  does, 
we  wiih  to  know  whether  female  infants  were  admitted 
to  memberfhip  bv  any  religious  rite,  agreeably  to  that 
•conftitution  ?  It  fo,  what  was  that  rite  .''  If  that  corjlitti- 
tion  faid  nothing  about  female  infants,  and  it  was  in  its 
nature  una'.terabley  we  wiOi  to  be  informed  how  they 
-came  by  the  right  they  now  enjoy  in  the  Chriftian 
church.  I  am  afraid  after  all,  Sir,  your  argument  will 
•prove  fatal  to  the  memberftiip  of  thefe  poor  little  fe- 
male infants  !  Do,Sir,have  a  little  compaftion  on  them, 
and  try  fome  way  or  other  to  provide  for  their  mem-- 


232 


APPENDIX. 


berfl'ip.  It  will  be  in  vain,  however,  to  tell  us  that  in 
the  inftitutlon  of  the  gofpel  church  there  is  mkJ.er  male 
nor  fttmaley  that  they  are  all  one  in  Chrijl  Jtfus.  This  is 
not  the  unalterable  conllitution  on  which  you  defend 
their  right.  And  it  is  true  only  of  fuch  as  are  believers, 
fuch  as  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Chrifl  Jfftts  ,* 
not  fuch  as  are  his  merely  by  circumcifion  or  baptifm. 
Thefe  infants,  if  they  are  any  way  interefted  in  Chrift's 
fiilvation,  have  no  faith,  by  your  own  acknowledgment ; 
for  you  have  fuppofed  them  incapable  of  it. 

In  this  firft  argument,  Mr.  Edwards  fuppofes  he  has 
eftabliihed  the  right  of  infant  memberfhip  in  the  Chrif 
tian  church.  But  the  utmofl  that  can  be  fairly  deduced 
from  his  arguing  is,  that  male  infants  were  admitted  by 
divine  appointment  to  mcmberfliip  in  the  JeivfJ}  church. 
Two  points,  which  are  all-impcrtant,  yea,  which  are  the 
\tryfi/if  qua  non  to  fupport  his  fcheme,  he  has  left  to- 
tally without  proof,  viz.  That  the  Jewilh  and  Chriftian 
churches  are  the  fame ;  and  that  female  infants  were 
admitted  to  memberlhip  by  divine  appointment.  It 
Mr.  Edwards  has  proved  nny  thing  more  tlian  I  have 
allowed  him,  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  difcern  it. 
The  refult  which  he  has  formed  upon  his  own  argu- 
ment, vrill  fliow  us  what  lie  fuppofes  he  has  done,  and 
w'lat  courfe  he  ineans  to  take  in  future.  "Thefe  tv.o 
parts  of  the  prcpof»tion,  faith  he,  being  evinced  ;  name- 
ly, 1.  The  church  memberlhip  of  infants  ;  and,  2. 
Their  aclmiiiion  to  it  by  a  religious  rite  ;  the  whole 
propofition  which  I  undertake  to  maintain,  and  to  lay 
as  the  ground-work  from  which  to  conclude  the  bap- 
tiim  of  infants,  is  this, — God  has  conftituted  in  his 
church  the  memberfliip  of  infants,  and  has  admitted 
them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite."-}- 

The  reader  will  here  fee  the  ground-work  ifinfiutt 
baplifm  !  that  it  is  placed  at  the  diftance  of  near  two 
thuufand  years  from  the  gofpel  dilpenfation  !  that  it 
does  not  look  to  that  for  its  fupport,  but  depends  en- 
tirely upon  the  unalterable  conjflitulion  of  the  Jewifli 
church. 

From  this  data  Mr.  Edwards  proceeds  to  his  fecond 
argun^ent,  as  follows  :  "  The  church  meiuherfljip  of  injants 


*  Gal.  iii.  l6,  28.  \  Prgc  43. 


APPENDIX. 


233 


-.-vfr  Jet  a  fide  by  God  cr  man  but  continues  in  force, 
■  ike  Jancticn  of  God,  to  the  prefeiit  day." 
.  llipport  of  this  argument,  he  realons  thus  :  "  Ev- 
iie  knows,  that  what  was  once  done,  and  never 
:ie,  muft  of  courfe  remain  the  fame  :  And  that 
was  once  granted,  and  never  revoked,  muft  needs 
;me  as  a  grant."  (p.  4.5.)  "  That  whatever  God 
eitablifhed  ihould  be  fuppofed  to  continue,  though 
I'uld  bring  proof  of  its  continuance,  unlefs  we 
..iinly  told,  that  he  has  ordered  it  otherwife."  Ic 
i  not  do,  I  fuppofe,  in  this  inftance,  Mr.  Edwards, 
.  prove  its  continuance  bv  "  analogy"  or  «'  infer- 
!  '  Nothing  but  hsing  plainly  to/d,"  can  be  ad- 
.iiLieJ  in  this  cafe. 

To  five  us  the  trouble,  however,  of  proTing  that  this 
irant  is  vacated,  Mr.  Edwards  has  generouUy  volun- 
eered  his  frrvices  to  prove  that  it  is  not.  This  proof 
■vill  now  be  examined.  "  There  was,  fays  he,  only  one 
joint  of  lime,  in  which  it  is  even  fuppofed  the  church 
.nemberfliip  of  infants  was  fet  afide  ;  and  that  was 
ivhen  the  Gentiles  were  taken  into  a  vifible  church 
late." 

Here  Mr.  Edwards  is  thought  to  have  ftumbkd  upo» 
;he  very  threfliold.  He  has  ta'cen  for  granted,  what 
rannot  be  admitted  without  the  moft  clear  and  une- 
quivocal proof ;  that  is,  that  the  apoftles  and  difci- 
jles  of  Jelr.s,  with  their  Mafter  at  their  head,  did  not 
.onftitute  a  new  church,  purely  upon  gofpel  principles, 
jut  that  they  were  incorpor.ited  with  the  old  Jewifh 
rhurch,  and  condu(fted  in  all  things  agreeably  to  its 
inalterable  confiitution.  Not'iing  in  our  view  can  be 
farther  from  the  truth  than  this  fentiment.  It  ftands 
;ondemned  by  all  the  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Tefta- 
nent.  But  having  treated  this  fubjecl  more  at  large 
n  a  preceding  part  of  this  work,  the  reader  is  referred 
;o  that  for  proof  of  what  is  here  alTerted.*  It  is  fufH- 
tient  here  to  fay,  If  Chrift,  with  more  than  leventy  dif- 
siples,  acting  by  his  authority,  totally  independent  of 
he  Jewifh  church  and  its  leaders,  did  not  conftitute  the 
Chriftian  church,  we  can  have  no  idea  of  its  exiftente 


•  See  Scft.  IV. 


234- 


APPENDIX. 


at  any  other  period.  To  fay  that  Chrift  and  his  difci- 
ples  were  united  as  members  of  that  old  church  evef 
after  Jefus  commenced  his  public  miniftry,  and  called 
thefe  difciples  to  follow  him  as  their  head  and  leader, 
v.'ould  be  to  contradict  the  whole  hiftory  of  h£ts  re* 
corded  by  the  Evangelifts. 

Mr.  Edwards  fuppofes  the  "  moft  carnal  Jew  that 
ever  fat  in  the  regions  of  darknefs  could  not  give  a 
more  frigid  account  of  circumcifion  than  Mr.  Booth 
has  done."  It  is  believed  he  would  be  puzzled  to  find 
a  Jew,  either  in  the  regions  of  darknefs  or  light,  when 
Chrlft  was  upon  earth,  or  at  any  period  fince,  who 
would  acknowledge  with  him  that  the  Jewifh  and 
Chriftian  churches  ::.re  the  fame.  No  j  they  know 
that  they  and  their  fathers  hated  and  oppofed  Jcfus  of 
Nazareth  and  his  doctrine  ;  that  they  perfecuttd  him 
and  his  followers.  Yet  Mr.  Edwards  tells  us,  that  "  tht 
firft  Gentiles  of  whcfe  calling  we  read  are  faid  to  have 
been  added  to  the  church  ■■,  biit  there  was  no  church 
exifting  to  which  they  could  be  added,  but  the  atuuni 
Jenxiip  church,  of  which  all  the  apoftles  and  difciples  of 
our  Lord  were  members."  Is  there  another  man  upon 
earth  that  can  believe  this  ?  that  can  entertain  fuch  a 
degrading  thought  of  Jefus  and  his  difciples,  as  not  to 
acknowledge  them  to  be  the  true  gofpel  church  "We 
know  that  the  Jev/idi  priefts  and  people  difowned  theiiij 
and  treated  them  as  the  enemies  of  their  church  j  but 
tvho  would  have  ever  thought  that  a  man,  profefling  to 
be  a  Chriftian  minifter,  could  be  fo  attached  to  the  old 
Jewilh  fyftem,  as  to  deny  Chrift  and  his  difciples  tlie 
honour  of  compofing  and  conftituting  the  nciv  Chrijlicin 
church  .'  Let  every  perfon  Avho  can  read  the  New  Tef» 
lament,  read  it  carefully  and  prayerfully,  and  fee  if  he 
can  find  a  fingle  hint  in  the  whole  account,  that  ever 
the  apoftles  and  difciples  of  Jefus  were  in  any  fenfe 
connected  with  that  church,  after  they  became  the  fol- 
lowers of  Chrift.  Mr.  Edwards  fays,  thefe  "  apoftles 
and  difciplts  were  members  of  the  ancient  Jewiih 
church."  The  evangeiift  John  fays,  The  Jews  had 
agrted  already,  fl  ut  if  ,i!!y  man  did  confers  t}mt  he  ivas  the 


APPENDIX. 


255 


he  flxuhl  he  put  tut  of  the  fyiiagogue.*    Did  not  the 
ies  and  difciples  confcfs  Chrift  openly?    Or  did 
y  diflemble,   and  fo  keep  their  place  in  the  Jewiill 
! lurch  ?   We  leave  the  dilemma  to  Mr.  Edwards  and 
"  friends. 

ill  the  npoftles  of  Jefus  thank  Mr.  Edwards  for 
.'-ting  them  with  his  "  deadly  enemies  ?"    Or  im- 
.;y  charging  them  v.ith  the  duplicity  of  the  Phari-- 
who  are  faid  to  believe  on  hira,  but  who  loved  the 
c  of  men  more  than  the  praife  of  God,  and  there- 
did  not  confefs  hini  openly  }  The  Jews  were  fo 
ii  om  acknowledging  Chrift  and  his  followers  as  be- 
.i.g  members  of  their  church,  that  they  exultingly  told 
the  man  whom  Jefus  had  reftored  to  his  fight,  Jhou  art 
his  lUjWpk,  hut  fje  are  Mcfcs^  difciples.  W e  k/iow  that 
God  fpc'he  unto  Mcfss  :  as  for  this  flloiViive  krioxv  not  fior.t 
whence  he  is.  \ 

It  would  not  help  ]Mr.  Edwards's  argument  to  fiy, 
that  the  Jewifii  church  now  confifted  of  fuch  only  as 
embraced  Chriil  and  his  doctrine.  This  would  but 
deceive  his  readers  ;  for  this  was  not  the  JewiOi,  but 
the  gofpel  church.  This  was  compofed  of  converts  frcm 
Judaifm  to  Chriftianity.  But  if  Judaifm  and  Chrillianiiy 
are  the  fame,  it  would  be  nonfenfe  to  talk  of  being 
converted  from  one  to  the,  other.  For  a  Jew  to  be- 
come a  Chriftian,  a  much  greater  altera*  ion  was  recol- 
fary  than  merely  to  chang;  his  "  clothing"  j.r;,n  «<  .ii- 
et  (p.  46,  48)  his  heart  muft  be  ch:uigei,  or  ■  o 
would  be  no  better  than  a  Judas. 

For  Mr.  Edwards  therefore  to  prove  thr.t  n:  .!c  in- 
fants \\tA  a  right  to  memberihip  in  the  Jcwifh  cUurcii, 
is  proving  what  nobody  denies  ;  and  will  afford  no 
Aipport  to  his  argumen>,  uiilefs  it  can  be  proved,  that 
the  two  churches  are  one  and  the  fame.  This  he  has 
indeed  afierted,  but  has  given  no  fufficient  proof  of  it. 
Nor  will  any  man  who  h  inquiring  after  truth  be  fatif- 
fied  by  ha^'iiig  it  proved,  that  there  were  fome  points 
of  agreement  ;  fome  analogy  between  the  two  churches. 
It  muft  be  proved,  that  Chrift  and  his  difciples  did 
aclually  unite  with  the  old  Jewifli  church,  and  became 


•  Jp'lU  ix.  2  7,. 


f  Jpliii  ix.  a8,  z') 


'259  APPENDIX  I 

onf  with  that  body,  or  elfe  his  argument  will  prot« 
nothing  to  the  point  in  difpute.  M 
Nor  will  it  help  his  caufe  to  fay,  "  that  the  right  o? 
infants  in  tlat  church  was  never  fet  afide  either  by  God 
or  man."  The  queflion  is  not,  whether  infants  were 
admitted  to  the  Jewilh  church,  but  whether  Chrift  has 
iniiituted  the  meniberlhip  of  infants  in  the  gofpel 
church.  Let  this  be  proved,  and  the  difpute  will  be 
:*r  ?n  end. 

Mr.  Edwards  feems  willing  to  let  go  every  body  and 
eTcry  thing  which  belonged  to  that  church,  but  the 
memberlhip  of  infants.  He  acknowledges  that  the 
jreat  body  of  that  "  church  were,  upon  the  whole,  the 
deadly  enemies  of  Chrift  and  his  doiftrine  that 
"  feverrd  infiitutions  did  ceafe,  and  fome  new  ones  were 
ordained,"  but  his  dr.rling  point  was  not  aftefted.  (p. 
46,  6".)  How  wonderful  it  is,  that  in  this  general 
irreck,  he  fhould  be  fo  fortunate  as  to  fave  the  mem- 
berfhip  of  infants.  Not  only  to  fecure  it  in  its  ancient 
form,  but  to  extend  it  to  females  as  well  as  males.  He 
liad  indeed  anticipated  this  difficulty,  in  carrying  for- 
v.'urd  his  famenefs  of  uicmberflup.  But  what  are  the 
greatefl  mountau-is  before  fuch  a  Zerubbabel  .''  They 
are  at  once  levelled  to  a  plain.  He  acknowledges  that 
women,  (the  antithefis  required  him  to  have  faid,  fe- 
rniile  infants)  were  not  admitted  into  the  Jewilh  church 
liy  any  ijiitiating  rite,  and  concludes,  "  that  whereas 
the  church  ftate  among  the  Jews  included  males  botli 
adult  and  infant,  fo  to  the  Gentile  church,  together 
with  thefe,  there  is,  by  the  exprcfs  order  of  GW,  the  fuper- 
addition  of  females."  But  pray,  fir,  does  this  exprefs 
trJ-:r  of  Gc.l  include  female  infants  Or  does  it  in- 
clude only  believing  women  If  there  be  any  "  ex- 
prcfs order  of  God"'  refpcdling  femnle  infants  in  the 
Ne  .V  Teftament,  do,  in  your  great  wifdom,  be  io  good  as 
to  point  us  to  it.  If  Mr.  Edwards  knows  of  any  exprefs 
trder  of  God,  he  can  have  no  diiiiculty  in  pr^  fcnting  it 
to  our  complete  conviction. 

We  know  that  believing  'wjmen  are  cxprcfsly  men- 
tioned ;  bv.t  this  does  nothing  to  eft.ibliQi  his  argument. 
It  13  faid  of  the  Samaritans,  tb^tnuhm  they  kt'Heved  Philip 


l  ifi^  the  things  conct  rtiing  the  kingdcrn  of  Gcd,  and  the 
-f  y^l'*^  ChriJ}^   they  ivere  baptized  btih  men  and 
.  >:.    Here  we  have  exprefs  mention  of  women,  but 
ii  t  of  children. 

It  will  appear,  no  doubt,  to  the  candid  reader,  that  to 
prove  the  exillence  of  any  right  under  the  Jewifh 
difpenfation,  is  not  to  prove  the  exigence  of  the 
fame  right  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation  5  the  quahfi- 
cations  for  ir.emberfliip  under  the  latter,  being  fo  very 
different  from  thofe  required  by  the  former,  tiiat  no 
j  plea  of  right  can  be  argued  from  one  to  the  other.  It 
might  as  well  be  argued,  that  becaufe  a  fmali  borough 
in  the  county  of  Cornwall  in  England  has  a  right  to 
fend  a  member  to  the  Britiili  parKament,  therefore  a 
town  containing  the  fame  number  of  inhabitants  in 
Maffachufetts  has  a  rigiit  to  fend  a  member  to  Con- 
grefs. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  Mr.  Edwards's  proof  that 
the  memberfbip  of  infants  was  carried  forward  into 
the  Gentile  church.  His  firft  argument  is  taken  from 
I  Matt.  xxi.  43.  "  Therefore  fay  I  unto  you,  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  Hiall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to 
a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."'  The  quef- 
tion  here  is,  what  was  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  what 
was  given  to  the  Gentiles  ?  Was  it  the  old  Jewiih 
church  privileges  .''  or,  was  it  tlie  gofjoel  difpenfation, 
which  Chrift  called  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  What  did 
John  mean  when  he  thus  addreffed  the  Jews  who  at- 
tended his  miniftry,  Repent)  for  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand  ?  Did  he  mean  that  the  Jewifh  church  ftate  was 
at  hand  ?  This  would  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards's  defi- 
nition. Muft  it  not  be  manifeft  to  every  candid  minJ 
that  lie  meant  tlie  gofpel  difpenfation,  containing  the 
fpiritual  kingdom  of  Chrift  } 

It  -nay  be  afted  how  this  could  be  taken  from  them, 
unlcfs  they  hriT:  had  it.  We  anfwer,  tiiis  kingdom  ivat 
among  them,  although  it  did  not  come  by  obfervation. 
The  gofpel  with  all  its  privileges  was  firft  publiflicd  fb 
the  Jews.  And  notwithftanding  they  had  delivered 
Ghrift  to  be  crucified,  yet  he  commanded  his  difciples, 

X  2 


^38 


ArP£NDIX, 


after  he  rofe  from  the  deatl,  to  preach  jtpent^:).:e 
remiffion  of  liiis  to  ail  nations,  br^innm^  at  jeruJaUm. 

Here  they  began  ;  and  on  the  iliv  of  pemeco 
three  thoufand  fouls  were  converted,  und  addnl  te  .' 
church.  We  appeal  to  the  conftientious,  (and  we  be- 
lieve there  are  many  fuch  among  the  pjedobaptifts,} 
whether  the  church  here  mentioned  was  the  old  Jew- 
i(h  church,  or  the  body  of  believers  which  had  been 
coUeded  under  the  perfonal  miniftry  of  ChriiV?  The 
latter  muft  be  admitted  ;  nor  can  v,'e  think  there  would 
be  a^diffenting  voice.  But  to  admit  this,  would  ruin 
INTr.  Edwards's  whole  plan.  For  he  has  no  other  fup- 
port  for  the  memberlhip  of  infants  but  what  is  de- 
rived from  the  u!■!^n  of  thefe  two  churches. 

The  reader  will  now  look  at  his  explanation.  "  The 
taking  of  the  kingdom,  faith  he,  from  the  Jews  and 
giving  it  to  the  Gentiles^  denotes  ;  1.  The  ceafmg  of  a 
regular  church  ftate  among  the  Jews.  And  this  ac- 
•lually  rook  place,  by  the  deftruflion  of  fome,  and  the 
dii'perllon  of  others  who  did  not  receive  the  Lord  Jcfus 
Chrill  as  the  lent  of  God  ;  while  thofe  who  did  receive 
him  were  at  length  removed  from  Judea,  and  by  de- 
grees ioft  the  name  of  Jew,  in  that  of  Chriftian."  (p. 
47.)  This  account  looks  pretty  plaufible  ;  but  it  has 
one  very  eiTential  defedl:.  It  happens  to  difagree  in 
almoft  every  point  with  matter  or  iacl  ;  for  inflead  of 
the  deftruilion  and  diiperfion  of  the  Jews  at  the  fetting 
lip  of  the  gofpel  church,  it  was  the  Chriftians  that  were 
difperfed  and  fcattered  abroad  by  the  perfecution  of  the 
Jews.*  "  Thofe  who  did  not  receive  the  J^ord  Jefus 
Chrift,"  at  this  time,  and  for  many  years  after,  remained 
in  the  fame  church  order  as  before  the  appearance  of 
Chrift.  Nor  is  it  faiTl,  that  the  name  of  'Jeiv  was  loft 
\a  that  of  Chrjjlian.  That  name  and  that  church  ftill 
continued  for  nearly  thirty  years  after  the  disciples 
•wen-ftrj  called  Chrjstuns  at  Aiitioch. 

It  would  leem  by  this  confuied  ftateraent  which  Mr. 
Edwards  has  made,  that  the  change  from  Judaifm  to 
Chriilunity  was  \ery  gradual  ;  that  it  took  nearly  forty 


APPENDIX. 


239 


yt.irs  to  bring  it  about.  That  the  Chrlftians  were 
united  with  the  Jews  all  the  time  until  their  difperfioiu 
(p.  47.)  Nor  was  the  change,  according  to  him,  of  any 
ccnl'equence  when  it  had  taken  place.  It  coniifted  prin- 
cipally in  the  abolition  of  a  few  Jewilh  rites,  and  the 
adoption  of  others  in  their  room,  both  meaning  the 
f.-rne  thing  :  *<for  rituals  are  to  a  church,  as  diet  and 
ornaments  are  to  a  man."  (p.  48.)  Thefe  do  not  eflen- 
tially  alter  him. 

Mr.  Edwards  argues  fecondly  from  Rom.  xi.  23,  24% 
from  the  breaking  off  of  the  Jews  from  the  olive  tree 
and  the  grafting  in  of  the  Gentiles.  His  explanation 
of  this  figurative  paflage  is  as  follows.  "  1 .  The  olive 
tree  is  to  denote  a  vifible  church  ftate.  2.  The  Jews 
are  faid  to  be  natural  branches,  becaufe  they  defcended 
from  Abraham,  to  whom  the  promife  was  made  :  I  ivilt 
he  a  God  to  theet  and  to  thy  feed.  3.  The  Gentiles  were 
brought  into  the  fame  church  ftate  from  which  the  Jews 
were  broken  off,"  &c. 

Upon  the  above  we  obferve — If  the  breaking  off  of 
the  Jews  from  the  olive  tree  denoted  the  diffolution  of 
their  church  ftate,  then  the  flicls  will  not  correfpond 
with  each  other  ;  for  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into 
the  Chriftian  church  long  before  the  vifibility  of  the 
Jewiili  church  ceafed. 

The  periecution  and  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  appears  to 
have  taken  place  the  fame,  or  the  year  follcv/ing.the  cru- 
cifixion of  our  Lord.  On  this  per;"ecution  it  is  faid  the 
church  was  all  fcattered  abroad,  excepting  the  apoftles. 
Was  this  the  old  Jewiui  church  that  was  perfecuted  ? 
If  fo,  we  aik  who  perfecuted  them  ?  Did  the  few 
Chriftians  perfecute  the  whoie  Jewifh  church  and  fcat- 
ter  them  What  abl'urdities  follow  upon  admitting  the 
arguments  of  our  opponents.  This  perfecuticii  was  over- 
^  ruled  for  the  fpread  of  the  golpel  among  the  Gentiles. 
Philip  went  down  to  Samaria.  Saul  was  converted 
at  Damafcus  and  b.-^gan  to  preach  ;  and  not  long  after 
there  was  a  church  planted  at  Antioch  in  Syria.  From 
this,  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  fent  into  Afia  Minor. 
Here  they  found  fome  of  their  cowr.vrymen,  and  ea- 


240 


APPENDIX. 


deavoured  to  convince  them  that  Jefus  was  the  McfTiah.! 
Some  believed,  but  the  greater  part  oppofed  and  bla'^ 
phcmed.  Then  Paul  ami  Barnab.is  n<axed  hold 
/aid,  It  ivas  neccjja>^  that  the  'ivcrd  of  God  p.ould  firjl  ha 
been  J^oken  to  yoii  ;  but  feeing  ye  put  it  from  ycUy  at:d  jud^ 
yourf elves  tmucrthy  of  everlnfling  life,  lo,  loe  turn  to  t' 
Gentiles  ;  for  fo  hath  the  Lord  conunmidtd  us.*  In  this  wa 
it  appears,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  taken  fro 
the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gentiles. 

Upon  the  olive  tree  Mr.  Edwards  obfcrves,  "  3. 
The  Gentiles  were  brought  into  the  fame  church  ftate 
from  which  the  Jews  were  broken  off."  The  objeft  of 
this  ftatement  is  eafily  difcerned.  It  is  made,  no  doubt, 
to  fave  the  memberfhip  of  infants.  Ho  has  no  difficul- 
ty in  admitting  that  this church  fate  \s -AtSTQiX  in 
almoft  every  thing  elfe.  But  the  memberfhip  of  in- 
fants mnft  be  retained,  "  although  we  have  no  proof  of 
its  continuance,  unlefs  we  are  plainly  told  to  the  con- 
trary." But  this  whole  ftatement  appears  to  be  erro- 
neous. 

If  the  gwd  "  olive  tree  Is  to  denote  a  viflble  church 
ftate,"  the  wild  olive  tree  muft  denote  the  fame. 
The  antithefis  certainly  requires  this  conftruftion.  But 
was  there  any  thing  among  the  Gentiles  at  this  time- 
which  might  be  called  a  church  ftate  ?  We  can  form 
KO  fuch  idea.  The  Gentiles  were  confidered  as  branch- 
es of  one  tree  before  believing,  and  of  another  after.. 
Tbefe  tv/o  trees  are  both  called  olives,  and  diftinguiftied 
only  by  their  qualities  ;  the  one  a  good,  the  other  a- 
v/ild  olive.  By  the  good  olive  tree,  therefore,  we  rather 
think  Chrift  hlmfelf  is  intended.  If  fo,  it  may  be 
afked,  how  can  it  be  faid,  that  the  unbelieving  Jews- 
were  branches,  (as  they  muft  have  been  in  fome  fenfe) 
or  they  could  not  be  broken  off .''  We  anfwer,  They 
were  fo  confidered,  in  confeqiience  of  their  vifible  pro- 
feffion.  As  a  nation,  they  profelfed  to  be  his  people. 
The  believing  fpiritual  branches  continued  in  Chrift  ; 
and  were,  under  his  iminediate  direftion,  formed  into  a 
fpiritual  church  in  vifible  gofpel  order,  and  the  unbe- 
lieviag  branches  cutoff  and  rejefted.    This  reprcfcnta- 


•  A<S.»  xiii.  46,  47. 


APPENDIX. 


241 


von  agrees  with  Chrift's  own  words  in  tkc  fifteenth 
chapter  of  John.  lam,  faith  he,  t/^e  true  vine  ;  my 
Fniher  is  the  hujhandman.  Every  branch  in  me  that  hear- 
rth  not  fruit  he  taheth  aivay  ;  and  every  branch  that  bear- 
eih  fruit,  he  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit. 

Here  are  two  kinds  of  branches,  and  both  faid  to  be 
in  Chrift  ;  one  barren,  the  other  fruitful.  The  fnrt- 
lefs  branches  were  in  him  only  by  profelTion  ;  the 
fruitful  branches  were  united  to  him  by  a  Uving  faith 
and  onenefs  of  nature. 

By  the  lijild  olive  tree,  we  think  the  apcftle  meant  to 
reprefent  Adam,  as  the  original  ftock  from  whence  all 
the  human  family  fprang  ;  and  all  who  are  not  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  grafted  into  Chrift  the  true  olive,  ftill 
ftand  in  this  wild  or  natural  ftock. 

Chrift  is  the  holy  root,  which  fiippliesthe  branches  with 
all  the  real  holinefs  they  poHefs.  From  him  each  living 
member  will  forever  draw  fap  and  nouriihment.  The 
apoftles  were  the  firj}  fruits  of  Chrift's  perfonal  miniftry  ; 
they  were  made  kcly  by  virtue  of  their  union  with  him. 
Jf  the  firj}  fruits,  faith  the  r.poftle,  be  holy,  the  lump  alft 
will  he  holy.  As  the  firft  fruits  were  accounted  a 
pledge  of  the  future  harveft,  fo  were  thefe  firft  converts 
confidered  as  a  fample  of  the  church,  which  (hould  be 
gathered  under  the  miniftry  of  the  word.  But  to  con- 
lider  Abraham  as  the  root,  as  many  do,  is  to  place  the 
branches  upon  a  very  incompetent  ftock.  Good  man  ! 
all  the  real  holinefs  he  ever  had,  was  derived  from  him 
who  is  the  Root  and  Offspring  of  David  :  nor  could 
he  communicate  the  fmalleft  degree  of  that  to  his  pof- 
terity.  Abraham,  like  the  wife  virgins,  had  no  oil  to 
impart. 

It  was  unbelief  that  firft  procured  the  excifion  of  the 
Jewilh  branches.  This  was  the  caufe  of  the  gofpel's 
being  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof.  Ihe  Gentiles  individually 
ftand  in  this  olive  tree  by  faith.  An  unbelieving  Gen- 
tile can  no  more  ftand  in  the  good  olive  tree  than  an 
unbelieving  Jew.  And  they  alfo,  if  they  abide  not  ft'ill  in  un- 
bilieffhall  be  grafted  in  :  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in 
again.    It  hence  follows,  that  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile 


24.2 


APPENDIX. 


can  have  any  union  with  the  good  ohve  tree,  but  Ly 
faith. 

If  fome  unbelievers  were  broken  off,  no  renfon  can  be 
afligned  why  any  ihould  be  retained.  If  none  were  re- 
tained but  real  believers  (which  we  have  every  reafon 
to  fuppofe  was  the  cafe)  then  infants  were  not  retairied, 
as  they  are  not  behevers,  by  Mr.  Edwards's  own  con- 
ceffion.  All  his  arguing  therefore  from  this  paiTage 
will  be  of  no  avail,  unlefs  he  can  prove^  that  notwith- 
ilanding  fome  unbelievers  were  broken  olF,  vet  frill  a 
vaft  proportion  were  retained.  The  idea  is  almoft  too 
abfurd  to  exift,  even  in  fuppofition.  The  reflefting 
reader  will  here  afk,  Did  not  infants  and  minors  make 
a  large  proportion  of  Jewifh  branches  which  were 
broken  oft"?  Is  it  not  faid  exprefily,  that  the  Gentiles 
who  are  grafted  in,  Jfami  by  fdtth  ?  But  Gentile  infants 
have  no  faith  :  how  then  do  the/  ftand  in  this  good, 
olive  tree 

It  is  worthy  of  obfervation,  that  the  Gentiles  are  faid. 
to  be  grafted  in  contrary  to  nature.  It  is  fo,  in  aimoft  every 
fenfe.  The  whole  of  religion  is  contrary  to  our  de- 
praved natures  •,  but  more  efpecially  in  the  following 
things.  1.  We  never  graft  a  fcion  but  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  its  being  better  than  the  ftock  into  which  it  is 
fet.  2.  The  fcion,  though  gr?.fted  into  another  ftock, 
and  nourifhed  by  it,  ftill  retains  its  own  nature,  and 
bears  its  own  fruit.  3.  A  bafe  ftock  is  rendered  valu- 
able, in  confequcnce  of  the  good  fruit  produced  by  the 
engrafted  part.  But  in  grafting  in  the  Gentiles,  ail  is 
reverfed.  They  are  not  cholen  on  account  of  their  own 
excellency,  but  on  Chrifir's  account.  By  being  grafted 
into  this  holy  fbock,  their  nature  is  fo  changed,  that 
tlaey  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  holinefs.  They  add  noth- 
ing to  the  eflential  value  of  the  ftock  into  which  they 
are  grafted,  but  receive  all  their  real  excellence  from  it. 

Before  \*-e  difmif;  this  argument  it  may  be  proper  to 
anfwer  one  or  two  objections  1.  If  Chrift  be  intended 
by  the  olive  tree,  why  does  the  apoftle  c.dl  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  w!io  could  have  no  real  intereft  in  him, 
fiittural  branches  ?  Anfwer  :  Tiiele  Jewj  had  no  real 
ii^tereft  in  liini  j  but  as  tliey  profeii'id  to  be  his  people, 


APPENDIX. 


2i3 


?7  were  confidereJ  ?.s  natural  branches  ;  that  is,  it 

3s  much  more  natural  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Jews  who 
had  the  oracles  of  God  cominitted  to  them,  and  confe- 
quently  were  better  informed  refpefting  the  Mefliah, 
fhould  believe  on  him,  than  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  who 
had  not  thefe  adv  antages.  2.  If  Chrift  be  intended  by  this 
figure,  v/hy  does  the  apoflle,  fpeaking  of  the  Jews,  call 
him  their  ov;n  oiive  tree  ?  Anfwer  :  He  was  their  civti, 
as  it  refpected  his  human  nature.  He  defcended  from 
the  ftock  of  Abraham,  .md  was  a  Branch  •uihich  fpratig 
from  the Jlem  of  Je[fe,  In  this  fenfe  he  was  •*  bone  of 
their  bone,  and'  fieOi  of  their  fle(h."  Hence  Pilate 
ivhen  addrefling  him  called  the  Jews  his  own  ncuion. 
•«  Thine  own  nation  and  the  chief  priefls  have  delivered 
thee  to  me  "  'I  his  mode  of  exprclVion  is  frequently 
made  ufc  of  by  Chrift-ians  when  praying  for  the  con- 
verfion  of  the  Jews,  <«  That  they  may  ctnbrace /i>a>  o%un 
Mefliah."  In  this  fenie  it  is  faid,  He  came  to  his  own 
and  hi!  own  received  him  not.  Thefe,  notwithftanding 
their  profeflion,  were  not  his  own  in  any  faving  fenfe 
they  were  not  the  children  of  God.  If  God  ivere  your 
leathery  faid  Jefus,  ye  would  love  me  for  I  proceeded  forth 
and  came  from  God.  Thefe  were  not  fpiritual,  but  natu- 
ral branches  only. 

Every  believing  Gentile  has  great  reafon  to  be  hum- 
bled under  a  fenfe  of  the  divine  goodnefs.  It  would 
illy  become  them  to  boaft  againft  the  Jewifli  branches ; 
and  Ihould  they,  they  would  neither  bear  nor  fuftainthe 
root,  but  the  root  them. 

One  obfervation  fhail  clofe  our  remarks  on  this  ar- 
gument of  Mr.  Edwards.  It  is  this  :  If  the  Jews  were 
broken  off  becaufe  of  unbelief,  it  is  pe rfedtly  inconfiftent 
to  fuppofe  that  they  will  ever  be  grafted  in  again  while 
remaining  in  the  fame  ftate.  Therefore  no  fuppofition 
can  be  admitted,  that  their engrafture  will  be  national^ 
or  even  by  fauiilies,  including  a  few  believers,  and  many 
unbeUevers.  Such  a  fentinient  can  neither  be  fupport- 
ed  by  reafon,  nor  by  any  thing  which  the  apoftle  has 
faid  in  this  epiftle.  The  penitent  Jews  will  undoubted- 
ly come  as  individuals,  as  all  others  do  who  embrace  the 
Saviour.    For  rehgion  is  at  ali  tlm.is  pcrfonal  ;  no  one 


APPENDIX. 


can  believe  for  another,  any  more  than  they  can  be  fa- 
ved  for  another.  But  when  the  Chriftian  church  fliall 
travail  in  birth  for  this  dear  negledled  people,  we  may 
hope  that  many  fpiritual  children  will  be  born  among 
them.  But  even  then  it  may  be  afked,  Shall  the  earth  be 
made  to  brittg  forth  in  a  day  ?  Or  JJjall  a  nation  be  born  at 
once  ?   Ifai.  Ixvi.  8. 

Mr.  Edwards  argues,  thirdly,  from  Rom.  xi.  17.  '*And 
if  fome  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,"  &c.  This  text 
he  endeavours  to  render  fubfervient  to  a  number  of 
conclufions  drawn  from  his  preceding  argument.  The 
whole  ftrength,  therefore,  of  what  is  faid  under  this 
head,  is  predicated  upon  that.  Hence,  if  we  have  inval- 
idated his  arguments  under  that  head,  his  condufions 
under  this  will  fall  of  courfe. 

The  entire  force  of  thefe  argumeots  taken  together, 
refts  upon  this  abfurd  and  falfe  hypothecs,  namely,  that 
while  the  great  body  of  the  Jewifh  church,  including 
adults  and  infants,  was  broken  off,  fome  believing  adults, 
together  with  their  unbelieving  offspring,  were  contin- 
ued. But  this  is  taking  for  granted  the  very  point  in 
difpute ;  which  is,  whether  any  unbelievers,  either 
adults  or  infants,  ftill  retained  their  ftanding  in  the  good 
olive  tree  \  or  were  admitted,  as  fuch,  to  the  privileges 
of  the  Chriftian  church.  The  account  which  we  have 
already  given  in  this  work*  of  the  gathering  of  the  firft 
Chriftian  church,  muft,  we  think,  convince  every  un- 
prejudiced mind,  that  it  was  compofed  of  individual  be- 
lievers only.  The"  falftty  of  Mr.  Edwards's  arguments 
will  be  fully  perceived  by  all  v/ho  take  the  pains  to  com- 
pare them  with  the  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment.  He  has  ftated  his  condufion  as  follows  :  ''The 
text  informs  us,  that  fome  of  the  branches  were  broken 
off,  and  if  only  fome,  then  not  all,  and  that  remnant^ 
continuing  in  their  former  fate  conftitnted  the  ftill  exift- 
ing  church  of  God."  (p.  S-t.)  It  here  needs  only  to 
remove  what  is  falfe,  and  this  conclufion  lofes  all  its 
iijrce  againft  the  Baptifts.  The  falfehood  lies  in  this 
member  of  the  fentence  ;  "And  that  remnant  continuing 
in  their  firmer  flate,^'  &c.    By  their  former  fate  is  rnfeant, 

•  See  Sc(ft.  HI. 


APPENDIX. 


^4* 


Itat  they  continued  fome  of  all  defcriptions  believers 
md  unbelievers,  parents,  cliildien,  and  lervanti  bought 
with  money  ;  for  this  was  their  former  rtate,  yea,  their 
primitive  itate.  This  we  have  denied,  aiid  think  we 
tiave  proTed  it  untrue.  We  ihall  m  iincain  this  ground 
until  proof  is  iv.zde  out  that  fome  were  retained  in  the 
good  olive  tree  beiidcs  btlierers.  This  fentiment  is  the 
very  ground  work  of  his  fcheme.  It  runs  tlirough  and 
forms  the  centre  of  all  his  arguments.  Hence  the  re- 
moval of  this,  unhinges  his  whole  plan. 

We  proceed  to  Mn  Etiwards's  ■  fourth  argument, 
founded  on  Eph.  ii.  14'.  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who 
hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  mid- 
dle wall  ef  parthion  between  us." 

From  this  paflage,  he  informs  his  readers,  the  fame 
conclufions  muft  be  drawn  as  from  the  preceding. 

1.  "  That  the  Jewifli  church  continued  as  before, 
and  was  not  diiTolved  at  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles." 
This  may  be  true  ;  but  what  is  this  to  tiic  argument  ? 
The  papal  church  continued  as  before,  and  was  not  dif- 
folved  at  the  fetting  up  of  the  proteftant  church.  Thefe 
Gentile  converts  had  no  more  to  do  with  tlie  old  Jew- 
ifli church,  than  we  have  with  the  church  of  Rome. 

2.  "  That  the  Gentiles  were  not  formed  ir.to  a  new 
c'-iurch,  becaufe  the  breaking  down  of  a  partition  united 
them  to  the  Jewilh  church,  and  n:ade  than  on:.^' 

That  the  Gentiles  v/erenot  formed  into  a  new  church 
is  true.  But  it  is  not  true,  if  we  can  undevttand  the 
Bible,  that  they  were  united  to  the  old  Jewiih  church  ; 
nor  to  any  other  which  bore  the  name  oi  a  Jc.vilh 
church  •,  but  to  the  difcipies  of  Chrift,  or  Chriftian 
church.  This  was  indeed  formed  of  believing  Jews, 
but  of  fuch  only  as  feparated  from  the  old  Jewiili 
church.      Mi\  Edwards  adds,  • 

3.  "  That  infants  were  in  actual  memberdiip  in  that 
church  to  which  the  Gentiles  were  united."  No,  Mr. 
Edwards,  this  cannot  be  admitted.  Your  ccncluilon  is 
built  on  falfc  premifes.  You  adduce  it  from  this  poftu- 
latum,  That  a  part  of  the  old  Jewilh  church,  contiiting 
of  believers  and  unbelievers,  coniliiuted  that  body  to  - 

Inch  the  Gentile  converts  were  added.    This,  it  is  be- 


246 


APPENDIX. 


lievcd,  has  no  fouiulation  in  truth,  and  can  be  fupported 
only  by  your  fophiftical  reafoning. 

The  union  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  fpoken  of  in 
this  text,  was  not  between  them  generally,  but  only  be- 
tween believers.  The  Jewidi  church  flood  as  far  aloof 
from  the  Gentiles  as  ever. 

Had  Mr.  Edwards  duly  confidered  the  verfe  follow- 
ing that  from  which  he  has  drawn  the  above  inferences, 
and  admitted  the  complete  fenfe  of  the  lafl:  claufe, 
it  would  have  favcd  him,  in  all  probability,  one  half 
of  his  book.  We  will  here  add  it,  fo  that  the  reader 
may  compare  it  with  his  remarks.  Having,  faith  the 
apoftle,  abolijljed  in  his  fiefo  the  eiimity,  even  the  law  of  com' 
tnaudinents  contained  in  ordinances,  fcr  to  make  in  hivifelf 
tf  twain  ONE  kew  man,  fo  waling  peace.  Here  the 
apoftle  informs  us,  that  in  order  to  e&ccl  this  union, 
the  law  of  ceremonial  ordinances  which  characterized 
the  Jevvifli  church  ftate,  and  which  was  the  occalion  of 
perpetual  enmity  betwc«n  them  and  the  Gentiles,  was 
aboliihed  in  the  fieih  of  Clirift.  Circumcilion  was  a 
principal  caufe  of  this  enmity.  "  The  Jews  reproached 
and  hated  the  Gentiles,  as  being  uncircumcifed.  Tha 
Gentiles  defpifed  the  Jews  for  being  circurnciled."*  2. 
The  text  ftiows  us  where  they  were  united,  namely,  in 
himfelf :  that  is,  in  Chrift.  There  never  has  been  any 
real  union  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  but  in  Jefus 
Chrifb  3.  The  text  alfo  fiiows  us  the  great  end  and 
clcfign  of  their  being  united  ;  for  to  make  of  twain 
ONE  NEW  MAN.  By  this  neiu  man,  the  Chriftian 
church  is  undoubtedly  intended.  No  other  fair  con- 
Itrudtion,  we  conceive,  can  be  put  upon  the  words. 
P'jes  this  language  coriefpond  with  the  fentiment  we 
f.re  oppofing  ?  Can  any  man  believe  the  old  Jewifli 
church  was  intended  ?  That  what  the  apoftle  calls  a 
tu'w  WiJWjWas  not  really  fo ;  but  only  the  old  one  a  Uttle 
altered  in  his  "  clothing,  ornaments  and  diet,"  but 
«  identically  the  fame  ?"  Is  it  not  plain,  that  by  this 
metaphorical  language,  the  apoftle  prefcnts  us  with  a 
view  of  the  New  Teftament  Chriftian  church,  compofed 
enly  of  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles  ?   For  in  Chrifi 


•  ViJ.  Pcole's  Expof.  in  be. 


APPENDIX. 


2i7 


*'-f(fus,  ihtrf  is  neither  Jrw  nor  GrreL  ;  but  believers 
TiTQ  ctie  in  him.  It  hence  appears,  tbat  the  apoftle  was 
■very  far  from  the  fcheme  which  Mr.  Edwards  advocates. 
He  appears  not  to  have  entertained  the  nioft  difl:ant 
idea,  that  the  Chriftian  cliurch  (when  compared  with 
the  Jewifli)  was  the  fane  mnn  with  only  his  "  clothes 
changed,"  but  a  ticnv  man  :  created  in  Chrifi:  to  good 
vorks.  The  reader  will  now  judge,  whether  the  love 
of  liypothefis  has  not  carried  the  Author  of  "  Candid 
Reifons,"  &c.  wide  of  the  truth. 

In  the  conclufion  which  Mr.  Edwards  draws  from 
the  preceding  arguments,  he  makes  this  remark — "If  a 
law  could  be  found  in  the  New  Teftament  to  repeal 
thst  which  hud  been  efVabliflied  in  the  Old,  I  grant 
freely,  that  all  that  has  been  faid  on  the  four  palTages 
of  icripture,  would  fignify  nothing."  (p.  .58.)  The  only 
queftion  of  importance  liere  is  this  •,  Is  that  law,  which, 
by  the  ftatement  of  this  writer,  gave  infants  a  viliblft 
Aanding  iu  the  church,  repealed  in  the  New  Teftament, 
or  is  it  ftill  in  force  ?  "Was  there  any  law  pricr  to,  or 
independent  of  the  law  of  circumcifion,  which  gave 
them  this  right  ?  If  fo,  let  it  be  pointed  out.  If  in- 
fants had  a  right  to  membcrHiip  independent  of  circum- 
cifion, it  would  have  continued,  whether  they  were  cir- 
cumcifed  or  not.  If  their  right  refted  wholly  upon  cir- 
cumcifion, then  it  muft  ftand  or  fall  with  that  inftitu- 
tion.  A  right  which  depends  on  a  particular  law,  can- 
not exift  any  longer  than  that  law  remains  in  force. 
The  queftion  then  comes  to  this  fingle  point.  Is  cir- 
cumcifion aboliflied  in  the  New  Teftament,  or  is  it 
rot  ?  We  prefurrc  no  perfon  will  pretend  it  lis?  -jny 
place  in  the  gofpel  church.  On  what  then, we  alk,  does 
the  right  of  infants  depend  ?  We  (hall  probably  be  told, 
on  the  di'iine  declaration,  «  /  -rvi//  be  a  God  to  thee,  and 
to  thy  ft  ed  after  thee."  If  this  promifc  contains  a  prior 
riglit,  and  v.-hich  exifts  independently  of  circumcifion,  it 
will  undeniably  follow,  that  uncircumcifed  infants,  or 
thofe  that  are  unbaptized,  ftand  in  covenant  relation  to 
God.  If  this  be  true,  then  the  children  of  thole  be- 
lieving parents  who  deny  infant  baptifm,  ftand  intereft- 
ed  in  this  promifc,  as  rcaHy  as  tliofe  who  are  initiated 


24«  APPENDIX.  ■ 

according  to  tV>e  inftitution.  The  parent  may,  ind«eM 
be  chargeable  with  feme  negle£t  of  duty  ;  but  this  cafl 
not  invalidate  the  claim  of  the  child,  nor  make  iH 
promife  of  God  of  twne  cffeB.  ^ 

Neither  Mr.  Edwards,  nor  any  other  writer  on  that 
Cde  of  the  controverfy,  h::s  attempted  to  trace  the 
right  of  infants  further  back  than  the  covenant  of  cir- 
ciimcifion.  They  feem  by  common  confent  to  leave 
them  for  two  thoufand  years  before,  to  the  mercy  of 
God,  without  any  covenant  relation,  or  any  initiating 
rite.  If  iriant  siiemberllnp  had  no  exiflence  but  in  con- 
nexion with  circnnicifion,  it  is  difficult  to  fee,  when 
this  has  ccafed,  how  that  can  be  continued.  To  us  it  re- 
quires fonie  new  law,  under  a  difpenfation  every  way 
Jiflerent,  to  fupport  and  continue  it  in  exiftence. 

As  an  auxiliary  to  infant  inemherfhip,  Mr.  Edwards 
argues  ficm  their  bringing  children  to  Chrift  •,  and 
endeavours  to  make  it  appear  that  this  aifords  evidence 
of  tlieir  belonging  to  the  church.  He  does  not  pretend, 
as  moft  Piedobaptids  do,  that  they  were  brought  to 
him  to  be  baptized,  but  fuppofes  <'it  is  moll  likely  they 
were  brought  to  receive  the  bencdiftion  of  Chrift. 
Matt.  X.  J  6."  (p.  67.) 

The  bringing  of  thefe  children  to  receive  Chrift's 
blelling,  affords  no  more  evidence  of  their  belonging  to 
tiie  church,  than  for  the  mother  of  Zebcdee's  children 
to  alk  the  privilege  for  her  two  fons  to  iic,  the  one  on 
Chrift's  right  baud  the  other  on  his  left,  in  his  kingdom, 
was  evidence  that  they  belonged  to  the  Jewiih  church. 

For  whatever  reafcns  tliefe  children  wen;  brought 
to  Chrift,  one  thing  is  certain  ;  that  is,  that  it  was 
not  a  common  thing.  This  appears  to  be  a  fohtary 
inftance.  The  conducl:  of  the  difciples  m  forbidding 
tliem,  is  full  proof  of  this  ail'crtion.  Neitlier  the  fim- 
plo  account  ftated  by  the  evangelifts,  nor  Mr.  Ki!wardi.'s 
laboured  gloflary,  adbrd  any  latisfaclory  e\idtj;cc  that 
they  were  brought,  or  blefted,  on  account  of  their  rc- 
iklion  to  the  church,  nor  that  they  were  at  this  time,  or 
any  time  after,  baptized.  . 

The  evangelifts  afilgn  at  moft  but  two  reafons  for 
ihcir  biiriging  thefe  cliildrcn  to  Clu-ift  ;  one  is,  that 


APPEND  IK. 


249 


lie  \vcu'd  lay  bis  hands  on  them  aid  pray  ;  the  other, 
liut  he  would  blels  them  :  probably  both  meant  the 
ilime  thing..  As  the  aft  of  bringing  thera  had  no  con- 
nexion with  their  being  church  inembsrs,  nor  ;:ny  th:ng 
which  Chrill  did  particubrly  applicable  to  them  as  fuch, 
we  leave  the  account  juft  as  we  find  it  Itaied  in  the 
fcriptures,  and  ackiiowk-J.ge  we  know  no  more  about  it 
than  what  is  there  recorded. 

We  muft  beg  the  reader's  indulgence  while  we  juft 
notice  Mr.  Edwards's  argument  from  Adts  ii.  38,  39. 
««  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  for  the 
remiflion  of  fins,  and  ye  lhall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft.  For  the  promile  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  that  are  afar  oil,  even  its  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  fiiall  call."  Fro-.n  this  text  Mr.  Edwards 
argues  that  the  phrufe,  "  to  yen,  :iud  to  ycur  chiLh  fu^  iu- 
-  tends  adults  and  infants." 

Upon  this  we  obfervc,  if  the  pro.T.il.-  n'.eiitior.od 
in  this  text  be  not  li.nitej  by  their  }uyihi:n>ry  or  by 
this  claufe,  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  G':djva!i  call^  it 
muft  be  confidered  as  unhmited.  If  limited  above, 
then  it  can  embrace  rone  but  fuch  as  are  true  pe^iitfuts, 
fuch  as  are  called  cf  God,  by  an  holy  calling.  In  tliis  v.'ay 
it  will  abfoiuteiy  exclude  infants,  unti!  theyaie  the  fub- 
jc£ts  of  repentance.  If  taken  in  an  uidunited  fenfe,  it 
will  prove  that  all  the  children  of  believers  iliall  receive 
remiflion  of  fins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Hoiy  Glicit.  In 
this  it  will  prove  too  much,  and  fo  defiroy  itfelf  totally. 
Mr.  Edwards  here  moans  to  apply  it  to  the  promife  in 
the  17th  chapter  of  Genefis  nude  to  Abraham  and  hi;, 
feed.  But  if  this  be  the  promife  intended  by  the  apof- 
tle,  it  will  include  ail  the  feed  of  Abraham  as  well  as 
the  infants  of  believing  adults.  For  Mr.  Edwards  has 
before  told  us,  th.a  that  promife  was  as  "  much  to  his 
leed  as  to  him."  Rrpiutitig,  and  being  called  of  God, 
then,  are  out  of  the  queft'ion  !  O  no,  not  wholly  fo.  I 
faid,  replies  Mr.  Edwards,  it  intends  adults  and  in- 
fants." By  adults,  Sir,  I  conclude  you  mean,  that  pa- 
repts  cannot  be  admitted  without  repentance,  and  being 
called  of  God  j  but  upon  tJxeir  believing,  their  infauv 


250 


ArPENDIX. 


ofFspring  ccme  into  the  immediate  polTenion  of  a  rig 
founded  in  the  promife  made  in  the  covenant  of  circu 
cifion.  This,  v;e  conclude,  will  be  granted.  It  wou 
be  deGrrLble  here  to  know  whether  Mr.  Edwards  raea 
to  apply  this  promife  to  the  children  of  believers  inde 
initely,  cr  to  infants  only.  The  apoftle  fays,  to  you  an 
to  your  children  ;  Mr.  Edwards  fays,  to  adults  and  infants 
\Ye  will  ftate  a  cafe,  and  a  very  probable  one  too,  and 
fhould  be  glad  of  a  candid  ^nfwer  to  it  :  it  is  this, 
the  age  of  fixty,  two  perfons,who  are  the  parents  of 
numerous  family,  are  brought  to  repentance  :  they  ap- 
ply to  Mr.  Edwards  to  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
the  Chriftian  cliijrch.  They  have  a  number  of  ch 
dren  of  different  ages,  from  thirty-five,  dov/n  to  twenty 
one  ;  but  no  infants.  Will  he  addrefs  them  in  the  Ian 
guage  of  the  ?poftie,  and  tell  them,  the  promife  is  lo  yen 
and  lo  yctir  children  ;  and  on  this  ground  admit  them 
all  to  baptifm  ?  We  very  much  doubt  it.  The  prac 
tice  of  Pjedobaptifl-s  generally  tells  us,  they  would  not. 
But  on  what  principle  can  thefe  children  be  refufed  ^ 
The  promife  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.  Thefe 
are  as  much  their  children,  as  if  they  were  infants  of 
only  eight  days  old.  The  apoftle  has  ufed  the  term 
children,  without  any  limitation  as  to  age.  If  the  right 
be  founded  in  this,  that  their  parents  are  believers,  then 
a  perfon  of  fifty  years  old  may  claim  this  right  for  him- 
felf,  with  as  much  propriety  as  any  could  have  chal- 
lenged it  for  him  when  he  was  in  a  ftate  of  infancy. 

We  will  fappofe  one  cafe  more,  and  one  which  fre- 
quently occurs  :  it  is  this.  The  parents  of  a  family,  at 
the  age  of  about  forty-ftve,  are  brought  to  embrace  the 
gofpel  :  they  have  children  of  every  grade,  from  eight 
days  old,  up  to  more  than  tv/enty  years.  We  wiOi  to 
know  whether  they. all  are  to  be  received  to  member- 
fhip  on  their  jwrents'  account  If  not,  what  age  dif- 
qualifics  them  from  coming  If  they  may  be  received 
cm  their  parents'  accoimt  at  the  age  of  twenty,  we  fee 
nothing  to  forbid  them  at  twenty-five,  at  thirty,  at 
forty  ;  yea,  at  any  age  while  their  parents  live  to  fupport 
thoir  cluini.  If  the  promife  in  the  text  gives  any  of 
the  children  of  believers  a  right  tomomberfirip  without 


APPENDIX. 


251 


repentance,  or  being  called  of  God,  it  gives  them  all 
»  right. 

However  abfurd  thefe  things  may  appear,  they  are 
but  the  fair  legitimate  confequences  of  Mr.  Edwards's 
argument.  There  is  but  one  way  for  him  honourably 
to  clear  himfclf,  and  that  is,  now  to  prove  that  tekna 
means  only  infants  of  a  certain  age,  and  not  children 
generally.    This  we  think  he  will  find  rather  difficult. 

His  conclufion  from  the  pafTage  is,  "  that  infants  are 
placed  in  the  fame  relation. to  baptifm,  as  they  were  of 
old  to  circumcifion."  (p.  71'.)  That  rite  placed  uncir- 
cumcifed  infants,  and  unclrcumcifed  adults  all  upon  one 
footing  as  to  right.  It  alfo  placed  Abraham's  fervants 
upon  the  fame  level  with  his  natural  feed. 

On  the  whole,  this  argument  fpun  out  of  the  promife 
made  iii  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  is  one  of  the 
nioft  fingular  that  we  ever  attempted  to  trace.  It  pof- 
fefles  certain  elaftic  qualities,  by  which  it  is  rendered 
capable  of  being  extended  or  contradled,  fo  as  to  fuit 
the  convenience  of  the  perfon  who  ufes  it.  Viewed 
in  its  fuUeft  extent,  and  it  proves  the  right  o:  fervants 
as  well  as  children  ;  hi  this  it  proves  too  much  for  the 
purpofes  of  infant  memberfiiip.  Viewed  in  a  limited 
fenle,  and  it  will  fupport  only  the  right  of  males  ;  in 
this  it  proves  too  little,  and  of  courfe  makes  no  provifion 
for  females.  Yet  upon  the  whole,  it  proves  juft  enough 
to  fecure  the  right  of  infants,  both  males  and  females, 
and  no  more. 

Let  us  now  for  a  moment  review  the  paffage,  in  or- 
der vo  afcertain  the  plain  fenfe  of  the  apoftle.  "  Then 
Peter  Paid  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized,  ewry  one 
cf  yju"  That  he  did  not  mean  infants  is  plain,  from 
realbn,  and  from  Mr.  Edwards's  own  conceffion  ;  who 
fays,  that  "  faith  and  repentance  are  never  required  of 
infants,  in  order  to  any  tiling."  ^-ut  he  required  re- 
pentance of  the  fame  perfons,  that  he  called  upon  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift.  To  fay,  that  he 
called  on  adults  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  and  at  the 
fame  tim«  to-  bring  all  their  impenitent  children  to  the 
ordinance,  appears  to  be  a  conftruftion  too  unnatural 
and  forced.    The  apoftle  adds,  And  ye  pall  receive  the 


252 


APPENDIX. 


gift  of  ike  Holy  Ghojl,  If  he  included  all  the  children  of 
believers,  did  he  engage  the  gift  of  the  Holy  GhcJ}  to 
them  all  ?  For,  faith  he,  the  promfe  is  to  you,  and  to  you' 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off',  even  as  many  as  th': 
Lord  our  God  pall  call.  Is  it  not  plain  to  every  one, 
that  the  lafi:  fentence  is  here  defigned  as  a  limiting 
claufe  ;  and  that  there  would  be  as  much  propriety  in 
leaving  it  out  in  every  inflance,  as  in  one  ?  We  ought 
either  to  read  it  thus — The  proinife  is  to  you,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  and  fo  con  fitter  it 
r>s  being  univerfal  ;  or  elle  conncft  this  limiting  claufe 
with  each  fubject  mentioned  in  the  text.  If  the  latter 
be  true,  it  would  be  underftood  thus,  The  promife  is  to 
you,  who  now  appear  to  be  true  penitents  ;  it  wifl 
equally  embrace  your  children,  whenever  they  become 
penitent  ;  and  alfo  the  Gentiles  who  are  afar  off,  even 
as  many  of  all  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call.  Rut  no 
fuch  thing  as  a  promife  to  unbelieving  children  can  be 
inferred  from  this  pafllige.  To  fuppofe  this,  would  be 
to  make  the  apoflle  acV  the  part  of  a  god-father,  and 
proinife  chat  thefe  children  fliould  rep?nt,  and  receive 
remifflon  of  fins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  &c. 
at  f  jme  future  period.  We  cannot  believe  that  the 
apoftle  ever  trifled  in  this  manner. 

Mr.  Edwards  attempts  to  get  over  the  difficult?  of 
this  limiting  claufe  in  this  way.  «'  As  the  apoftle,  faith 
he,  extends  the  promife  beyond  the  called  ia  the  flrft 
claufe,  we  mufi:  follow  his  example,  and  extend  it  be- 
yond the  called  in  the  laft  claufe — ^Thns  the  promife 
is  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call,  and  to 
their  children."  (p.  79.)  It  does  not  appear  that  tlie 
apoftle  did  extend  the  promife  in  the  firft  clanfe  beyond 
the  called.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  meant  to  ap- 
ply the  promife  to  children  upon  any  other  principle 
than  as  he  applied 't  to  parents  ;  namely,  upon  their  re- 
penting and  being  baptized.  The  promife  would  as 
naturally  e.nbrace  impenitent  parents  as  impenitent 
children.  On  the  whole,  this  paffage  muft  be  torftired, 
or  it  will  not  fpeak  a  fingle  word  in  favour  of  infant 
b;iptifi».    Some  very  fenfible  and  learned  Pai-.lobaptift'r 


APPENDIX. 


25? 


kave  given  it  up,  as  affording  no  argument  in  favour  of 
their  fentiment. 

In  what  an  undignified  light  does  the  fcheme  of  our 
©pponent  reprtfent  the  aportle  Peter.  On  the  memo- 
rable day  of  Pentecoft: — fuch  a  day  as  had  never  been 
fince  time  began,  and  probably  fuch  an  one  as  will  never 
occur  again  while  time  lafts — the  Holy  Ghoft  lent 
down  from  the  afconded  Saviour  !  Peter  Handing  ia 
the  midi't  of  throe  thoufand  deeply  diilrelTed  perfor.s 
who  were  crying  out,  Wh.-d Jhall  il'c-  do  ?  To  this  earned 
inquiry,  the  holy  apoftle  is  reprefented  in  this  very  ab- 
furd  light  as  telling  them,  "that  infants  are  placed  in  the 
iame  relation  to  bapiifm  as  they  were  of  old  to  circum- 
ciiion."  (A  fu'Vieft  which  they  made  no  inquiry  abou", 
and  vhicli  we  prefume  had  not  at  this  time  come  into 
their  thoughts.)  Had  the  aportle  been  as  intent  upon 
infant  baptifm  as  ^Ir.  Edwards  himfelf,  we  cannot  fup- 
pofe,  at  Jijch  a  time  and  to  fuch  an  inquiry,  he  v/ould 
have  given  fuch  an  anfwer. 

In  the  preceding  animadverfions,  we  have  in  a  very 
brief  manner  examined  Mr.  Edwards's  pretended  refu- 
tation of  cur  arguments  againfl  infant  baptifm,  and  have 
endeavoured  to  ihow  the  inconclunvenefs  of  his  reafon- 
ing.  In  order  to  render  his  tafk  more  ealy,  he  has 
attempted,  at  the  very  outfet,  to  deprive  us  of  thofe 
great  advantages  which  the  icrip:urcs  aftbrd  us  in  this 
controverfy.  But  thefe  will  not  be  relinquifhed.  He 
has  alfo  laboured  abundantly  to  evade  the  force  of  thefe 
arguments,  by  endeavouring  to  embarrafs  and  pei  plex 
them.  But  when  difentangled  from  his  fopUiftical  web, 
they  itiil  appear  correcc  and  uninjured. 

We  have  alfo  confzdered  the  two  leading  arguments 
iji  his  prefcnt  fyftem.  In  the  firlt,  he  underiak.3S  to 
prove,  that  "  God  has  inrtitu'ed  in  his  church  the 
memberliiip  of  infants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a 
religious  rite."  In  his  fecoad  argument,  his  objetii  is 
to  prove  the  continuvmce  of  this  right  of  memberliiip. 
From  thefe  taken  together,  he  infers  the  right  of  infants 
to  baptil'm  in  the  golpel  church. 

We  have  attempted  to  fliow  the  inconclufivenefs  of 
the  y///7,  by  proving  that  the  Jewifli  and  Chrif\iaa 


254 


APPENDIX 


churches  were  not  the  fame  :  That  therefor*  no  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  one  to  the  other  refpesSting  any 
pofitive  inftitution. 

With  reference  to  the  fecoml,  we  have  endeavoured 
to  llioA',  that  this  right  cannot  be  continued  in  confe- 
quence  of  that  law  which  gave  it  exiiVence,  unlefs  con- 
tinned  according  to  that  law  :  namely,  that  a  law 
obliging  a  parent  to  circumcife  his  male  infants,  cannot 
bind  him  to  baptize  them,  both  male  and  female.  That 
Tvhatever  dnties  were  enjoined  by  the  JewiQi  difpenfa- 
tion  belonged  to  that  difpenfation  ;  and  that  whatever 
duties  are  required  by  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  are  clear- 
ly and  particahrly  enjoined  by  it,  and  not  left  to  be  in- 
ferred from  any  thing  elfe.  This  is  efpecially  the  caf« 
T/ith  whatever  relates  to  pofitive  inftitutions. 

It  will  now  be  referred  to  the  decifion  of  the  reader^ 
uh ether  we  have  not  demonftrated,  in  a  manner  too 
plain  to  be  denied,  that  the  Chriftian  church,  collefted 
under  the  perfonal  miniftry  of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles, 
was  entirely  diftincTt  from  the  Jewifli  church  and  inde- 
pendent of  it.  If  fo,  all  Mr.  Ed-.vards's  arguments, 
founded  on  a  contrary  hypothefis,  are  unavailing.  They 
prove  nothing  but  his  own  inconfiftency. 

Having  thus  Atowu  that  thefe  two  arguments,  which 
are  the  main  pillars  in  Mr.  Edwards's  fyftem,  are  both 
defedlive,  and  totally  unable  to  fuftain  tlie  fuperftruc- 
ture  raifed  over  them  ;  we  fnall  not  trouble  the  reader 
at  prefent  with  animadverfions  qn  his  other  collateral 
arguments,  many  of  which  are  but  mere  ramifications 
of  the  fame.  It  is  evident,  that  on  thefe  he  placed  his 
main  dependence.  All  his  other  arguments  are  de- 
figned  only  to  corroborat«e  and  ftrengthen  thefe.  Yea, 
he  tells  us  exprefsly,  that  "  the  whole  defence  of  infants 
refts  on  two  arguments.  1-  That  God  did  conftitute 
in  his  church  the  memberfuip  of  infants^  and  admitted 
them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite.  2.  That  the  right  of 
infants  was  never  taken  away."  (p  8"".) 

The  firit  of  thefe  is  admiited  under  certain  qualifi- 
cations with  refpeirb  to  the  Jewitli  church.  But  even 
IB  this",  infants  were  not  generally  admitted  by  any  re- 


APPENDIX. 


.ijs  rite.  It  was  only  infants  of  a  certain  defcrip- 
.    n  who  were  thus  admitted. 

With  regard  to  the  fecond,  fliould  we  admit  the 
premifes,  we  muft  deny  the  conclufion.  For  though 
this  right  had  never  been  taken  away,  it  would  not  be- 
long to  any  other  church  than  that  to  which  it  was 
given.  If  this  be  the  foundation  on  which  "  the  de- 
fence of  infants  refts,"  then  it  depends  certainly  on  no 
new  additional  grant  made  under  the  gofpel  difpenfa- 
tion  j  of  confequencc,  there  can  be  no  more  in  it  now, 
than  was  originally  in  it.  If  the  whole  defence  of  in- 
fants reds  on  this,  then  no  part  of  it  can  reft  on  any 
thing  elfe.  This  privilege  can  no  more  be  enlarged 
without  fome  fpecial  aft  of  the  Lawgiver,  than  it  can 
be  wholly  taken  away  and  difannuUed.  Hence  if  this 
right  remain  at  all,  it  mufl:  remain  precifely  in  its  in- 
ftituted  form,  and  no  othervrife ;  unlcfs  fome  new  law, 
making  an  important  alteration,  can  be  produced. 

What  efFect  Mr.  Edwards's  writings  may  have  in  ef- 
tablilhing  his  Prcdobaptifi:  brethren,  we  pretend  not  to 
fay;  but  we  are  perfuadcd  that  i'uch  "  candid  reafons" 
as  he  has  oftered,  when  Itript  of  their  fophiftical  drefs, 
will  have  little  influer  ce  on  the  minds  of  real  Baptifts. 
We  know  of  no  one  who  has  been  brought  by  them  to 
"renounce  the  principles  of  Anti-pa;dobaptifm  but 
on  tlie  contrary,  fevcral  have  been  brought  to  embrace 
them.  His  reafonings  have  produced  the  fame  effects  on 
others,  which  he  informs  his  readers  that  Mr.  Booth's 
did  on  him. 

If  what  we  have  offered  to  the  reader  in  the  prece- 
ding pages  be  according  to  the  oracles  of  truth,  we 
pray  the  great  Head  of  the  church  to  fucceed  it  for  the 
comfort  and  eftabiifliment  of  fuch,  as  are  feeking,or  con- 
tending for  the  truths  and  for  the  conviftion  of  fuch  as 
are  adrocating  error. 


APPENDIX. 


SECTION  V. 

S  rniCTURES  on  Two  D'lfcourfcs  on  the  Perpetuity  mid 
Provifton  of  God's  gracious  Covimnit  ivith  Abraham  and 
his  feed.  £y  SaMUEL  WORCESTER,  A.  M.  Pa/lor  of 
the  Tabtftieclc  Church  in  Sakin. 

the  piety  and  talents  of  the  Author  of  thcTe 
flifcourfes,  we  entertain  fentiments  of  refpe^tful  efteeni. 
And  although  we  feel  impelled  to  animadvert  ui)on  his 
writings,  we  fliall  ftill  hold  his  perfon  facred.  We  do 
not  blame  him  for  endeavouring  to  defend  his  own  fen- 
timents, and  guard  his  flock  againfi;  what  he  confiders 
to  be  error.  But  from  his  former  profefiions  of  candour, 
\7e  had  no  juft  reafon  to  expect,  that  he  would  fo  far 
mifreprefent  our  known  and  avowed  fentiments,  as  to 
lead  his  readers  to  fuppofe,  that  we  were  deftitute  both 
of  religion  and  common  decency  that  we  "  difplay 
our  greatefi:  zeal  in  making  people  believe,  in  too  many 
iriftances,  that  going  into  the  water  will  anfwer  all  the 
purpofes  of  their  prefent  comfort,  and  of  their  eternal 
fjlvation,"  (Note,  p.  73.) 

Had  Mr.  Worcefter  contented  himfelf,  by  proving  to 
demonftration  every  iota  of  his  own  plan,  without  in- 
vading the  right  of  others  ;  his  difcourfes  might  in  all 
probability  have  paffcd  down  the  ftrcam  of  tune  un- 
noticed. Si'.chan  attempt  would  have  given  norcafon- 
able  offence  to  any  man  living.  But  when  he  digreffes 
from  this  point,  for  the  purpofe  of  reprefenting  in  an 
unfriendly  light  the  fentiments  and  practice  of  a  nume- 
rous body  of  Chrirtians,  who  think  they  have  at  leall: 
equal  pretenfions  to  apoflolical  purity  of  fentiment,  we 
Kiuft  view  it  with  the  deepeft  regret. 

The  author  of  the  difcourfes  before  us  has  commen- 
ced the  attack  ;  and  if  we  do  not  miftake  him,  has  ini- 
p'icitly  invited  us  to  the  conteft.  If  this  be  not  his 
meaning,  we  think  he  has  at  leaft  fupcrfedcd  the  necef- 
fity  of  an  apology  on  our  part,  if  we  tcft  him  by  his  own 
principles.  The  paragraph  to  which  we  refer  is  in  the 
following  words  :  '<  Any  caufe  or  dodlrine  which  ^jrifiis 
from  the  light  of  fair  inveftigation,  or. will  not  endiire 


APPENDIX.  2.57 

:he  teil  of  fcripture  argument,  certainly  cannot  be  the 
caufe  of  truth,  Kor  a  dotStrine  according  to  godlincfi. 
And  tholo  who  will  be  offended  or  hurt  by  a  fair  and 
candid  exhibition  of  argument,  and  vindication  of  fen- 
r'.ivients  in  oppoCcion  to  their  own,  give  the  greateft 
evidence  that  they  are  not  contending,  or  concerned 
tor  the  caufe  of  truth,  but  only  for  the  caufe  of  a  par- 
tv."  (p.  78.)  The  common  adage  fays,  "  It  is  a  poor 
rule  that  will  not  work  both  ways." 

If  Mr.  Worcefter  meant  to  apply  this  to  the  Baptifrs, 
and  fuppofe  that  they  would  fhrink  from  a  fair  fcrip- 
tural  inveftigation  of  the  fubje<rt  in  difpute,  he  may  be 
alTured  he  has  miffaken  the  men  whofe  fentiments  he 
has  attacked.  No,  let  him  and  his  brethren  treat  us  ia 
this  way,  and  I  believe  they  will  not  find  us  to  '<  flirink 
from  the  light  of  fviir  inveftigation."  Nor  do  wo  be- 
lieve, that  the  Baptifts  «<  will  be  oiJended  or  hurt  by  a 
fair  and  ir.tnlid  exhibition  of  argument."  But,  if  inftead 
of  this,  he  lhall  attempt  to  filence  us  by  an  oblique  ref- 
erence to  the  ghoftly  ftory  of  Munfter,  (which  by  the 
way  we  were  no  more  concerned  in,  than  we  v>  ere  in 
the  ivhchcyaft  in  Salem)  or,  to  deter  us  from  following 
the  example  of  our  blefil'd  Redeemer,  by  the  tales  of 
a  Vojfust  of  "  naked  men  and  women,"  he  need  not  be 
furpr.U'd,  if  fuch  arpiunents  as  thefe  do  not  produce 
convidion.  But  even  thefe  fliall  be  noticed  in  their 
proper  place. 

The  difcourfes  before  us  are  founded  on  Gal.  iii.  29, 
And  if  y  be  Cbriji's,  then  are  ye  Abraham'' s  feed,  and  heirs 
Kccordirg  to  the  provufe. 

The  doftrine  which  the  author  adduces  from  the  text 
is  this  :  "  In  God's  covenant  of  promife  with  Abraham, 
provilion  was  made  for  the  continuance  of  the  churck 
formed  by  it,  and  thus  for  the  tranfmiflion  of  the  privi- 
leges and  bleflings  contaiaed  in  it,  from  generation  to 
generation,  down  to  the  clofe  of  time." 

In  order  to  illuftrate  this  doctrine,  Mr.  Worcefter 
firft  attempts  «*  to  (how,  that  the  covenant  which  was 
made  with  Abraham,  and  ivhichthe  church  luat  formed 
in  his  family^  was  intended  to  be  perpetual."  By  this 
covenant  he  evidently  intends  the  covenant  of  circum- 


258 


APPENDIX. 


cifion  ;  for  no  other  has  ever  been  fuppofed  to  form 
Abraham's  family  into  a  church  ftate.  This  conclufion 
IS  drawn  not  merely  from  the  above  ftatement,  but  from 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  reafonings.  That  this  is  a  fair 
ftatement,  it  is  prefumed,  will  not  be  denied. 

We  proceed  therefore  to  confider  this  "  candid  ex- 
hibition of  argument."  And  fliall  attempt,  jirft.,  to 
prove,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  totally  miflaken  the 
promife  in  his  text  ;  that  the  apoflle  referred  to  a  pro- 
m'lfe  entirely  diftindt  from  that  from  which  he  has  rea- 
foned. 

Second.  W e  fliall  attempt  to  fhow  that  his  applica- 
tion  of  this  promife  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or 
to  believing  parents  and  tlieir  unbelieving  children,  is 
unfcrlpiural,  and  contrary  to  the  apoftle's  reafoning 
tlu-oughout  the  context. 

The  reader  will  keep  in  mind  that  the  promife  made 
to  Abraham  and  his  feed  in  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
fion,  is  the  daium  from  which  the  author  of  thefe  dif- 
courfes  reafons.  In  order  to  prove  that  he  has  mif- 
taken  his  text,  and  reafoned  from  a  promife  not  ex- 
i-'reffed  nor  intended  by  the  apoftle,  we  begin  at  the 
fixth  verfe,  where  the  fubjefl  is  particularly  introduced 
m  the  context.  Eufii  as  Abrahnm  belirved  God,  and  it 
luas  accounied  to  him  for  rightecujnefs.  (verfe  7.)  Kmnxi 
ye  therefore,  that  they  nvhich  ar  e  of  faith,  the  fame  are  the 
(hildrcti  oj  Abraham,  (verfe  8.)  And  the  fcrlpture  fore- 
fedtig  that  God  uuould  jufify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gcfpel  unto  Abrahmn,  faying.  In  THF.E 
SHALL  ALL  NATIONS  BE  BLESSED.  This  is  the  promife, 
from  which  the  apoftle  reafons  throughout  the  chapter, 
But  it  rnuft  be  obferved,  that  this  promife  is  not  found 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  is  recorded  at 
large  in  the  feventeenth  chapter  of  Gcncfis.  By  ex- 
amining this,  we  fliall  find  that  the  above  promife  is 
neither  exprefled  nor  contained  in  it  by  fair  implica- 
tion. The  promife  quoted  by  the  apoftle  is  in  the 
■  twelfth  chapter  of  Gencfis,  and  third  verfe.  This  was 
made  to  Abraham  at  the  time  when  he  was  called  to 
leave  his  country  and  kindred,  to  go  and  fojourn  in  a 
ftrange  land.    The  Meffiah,  in  whom  the  nations  were 


APPENDIX. 


.  blefled,  was  revealed  in  this  promife.    Hence  the 
lie  calls  this  the  preaching  of  the  gcfpel  to  Abrahain. 
-  was  probably  the  period  alfo  referred  to  by  our 
;,  when  he  faid  to  the  Jews,  Tour  father  Abraham 
r-jiireJ  to  fee  mv  da\,  and  he  faiv  it  and  ivas  gl^d.*  On 
the  above,  a  learned  commentator  makes  the  follovHng 
remark  :  "  The  apoftle  qiioteth  the  promife,  Gen.  xii. 
3,  where  God  teils  Abraham,  that  in  him  all  the  na- 
tions (or  families)  of  the  earth  fhoiild  be  blefled.  This 
is  to  be  imderftood  of  thcfe  fpiritual  bleflings  which 
are  in  Chrift  Jefus  :  for  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
were  no  otherwife  blcffed  in  Abraham."f 

Tliis  promife  was  made  twenty-four  years  before  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion  exifted  ;  and  was  as  independ- 
ent of  that,  as  the  covenant  made  with  Noah  refpect- 
ing  the  drowning;  of  the  world.  It  did  not  depend  at 
all  upon  the  obedience  of  Abraham,  oi-  any  other  crea- 
ture. It  was  in  no  lenfe  conditional.  The  divine  ve- 
racity was  pledged  for  its  fulfilment.  And  whether 
circumcifion  had  been  inftituted  or  not,  God  v/ould  in 
the  fulnefs  of  time  have  fent  his  Son  into  the  world, 
.and  would  hr.ve  bleiTed  the  nations  in  him. 

That  this  promife  was  made  to  Abraham  twenty- 
four  years  before  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  is  proved 
firom  the  following  circumftances.  1.  Abraham  was 
feventy-five  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haran,^ 
which  was  the  time  when  this  promife  was  C  09 
made.:^  '^'^s  ninety-nine  yesrs  old  when  he  -<  J}_ 
was  circumcif3d.§    See  the  margin. 

Abraham  received  this  promife,  believed  in  iis  ac- 
complilhmcnt,  faw  by  faith  the  day  of  the  Lore!  Je- 
fus, and  was  jiiftified  through  faith — all  while  he  v/iiS 
in  uncircumcilion.il  Not  one  of  thefe  circumfkances 
could  have  ever  been  aJtered,  had  that  never  been  in- 
ftituted. Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  promiie  was  di- 
reftly  connected  with,  or  hicluded  in  that  covenant. 
For  notwithll:anding  it  is  there  f>nd,  a  father  of  many  tia- 
ticni  -iuiil  I  }>:ah  thee  ;  and  although  this  might  in  a 
metaphorical  fenle  allude  to  his  being  the  father  of  be- 


*  John  viiL  56.  •)■  Poori  Gontin.  is  loc.  \  Gen,  xii.  4. 

§  xvii.  1.  H  Vid.  Rem.  iv  9,  10. 


260 


APPENDIX. 


iever  s  in  all  nstiors  ;  yet  it  rriuft  be  ohferved,  that 
ifanJs  immediately  connefted  with  tlie  following  wordsl 
j^fid  I  will  make  thcc  exceeding  fruitful  ;  and  I  will 
NATIONS  OF  THKE,  and  hivg.i  fhatl  ccme  of  thy  toil 
Thcfe  expreiTions,  tiiken  together,  do  not  amount  to  : 
prrTTiiie,  that  tlie  nr.tions  which  fliould  Tpring  fror 
Abrahnn-.'s  loins,  cr  any  others  fliould  be  blefled 
liim.    It  was  not  therefore  defcending  from  fhe  loir 
of  Abraham,  but  pofleffing  Ins  faith,  which  gave  a  title  ' 
to  the  prornife.    Tbe  promife  that  he  Oonld  be  the 
•father  of  v.any  naticnt,  ;;nd    that  hifjgs  fwuld  ccmc  of 
him,  has  been  literally  and  fully  accoinpUfhed. 

The  proiniic  wliich  refpecled  the  blefling  of  the 
Gentile  n.uions  in  Chrift,  was  renewed  again  to  Abra- 
ham about  twenty  years  after  the  covenant  of  circum- 
eiGon-  This  w;\3  under  circumftances  peculiarly  folemn  : 
It  was  when  he  was  called  to  offer  up  his  beloved  fon 
Ifaac.  We  hnv«  much  reafon  to  believe,  that  in  this 
tranfatlion,  Abraham  faw  more  of  the  myUcry  of  re- 
demption, through  the  incarnation  and  facrii^ce  of  the 
Son  of  God,  than  he  had  ever  feen  before.  The  Lord 
now  gracioufly  condefcended  to  comfort  him,  by  repeat- 
ing the  promife  which  he  made  to  him  more  than  forty 
years  before,  with  this  variation  ;  In  thy  seed  fhall  all 
the  r.aiious  of  the  earth  he  bli  ffed. 

] .  The  ap oftle  is  particularly  cai-eful  to  diftinguifh  this 
proinife  relprfling  the  seed  in  whom  the  Gentile  na- 
tions fliould  be  blefled,  from  that  made  in  the  covenant 
cf  circumcifion  refpeiSting  the  poflerity  of  Abraham. 
The  ivoman's  seed,  who  was  to  h-uife  the  ferpeut's  head, 
was^alfo  the  seed,  promifcd  to  Abraham,  in  whom  the 
believing  Gentiles  fliould  be  bleffed.    But  primarily 
his  natural  feed,  or  at  raofl:  his  fpiritual  feed,  and  n( 
Chrift,  was  intended,  by  the  feed  in  the  covenant  < 
circumcifion.    The  nations  have  never  been  blofled  1: 
any  other  of  Ahrahim's  feed  but  Chrift,    2.  'I'he  apo 
tie  farther  diftinguidies  th.e  promijc  under  confideratior. 
.in  the  lixteentJi  verfe.     Noncyfaiih  he^  to  Jh'ahan  o,... 
his  fed  lucre  the  PROMisFS-  wjad?.    He  speaks  in  the  piv;- 
ral,     promifes."    In  G&n. -  xii'  8,' n  is-foidV'^-^"' "i^^ 
f0.ill  all  families  cf  thi  eai-ib  h'  bleffed.     And  in  G;:'n.  xxi:. 


APPENDIX. 


IS,  it  is  fjid,  In  ih)  sri-D  p.^al!  all  i'c  fmtioiis  of  ihe  carih 
be  bltffed.  That  we  might  not  miftake  the  latter,  as 
rcferriniT  to  the  proniiCe  nude  in  the  covenant  oi 
ti/cu.ncillon,  and  ib  to  Abraham's  natural  feed,  tl\f 
apoftle  adds,  «  He  faith  not,  And  to  feeds,  as  of  many  , 
but  as  of  ONE,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  The 
promifes  in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  were  to  many  ; 
to  Abral-.am's  feed  generally.  Will  any  perfon  pre- 
fume  to  fay  that  thefe  proiiiifes  referred  to  Chriil,  or 
were  made  to  him  ;  or  that  he  was  the  feed  there  in- 
tended ?  Were  kings  to  come  out  of  his  loins,  and 
nations  to  be  made  of  him  }  Was  the  land  of  Canaan 
promlfed  to  Chrift  for  an  everlafting  poffeffion  Thefe 
were  fome  of  the  promifes  made  and  fulfilled  to 
Abraham  and  his  natural  leed.  Chrift  claimed  no  in- 
tercfl:  in  the  land  of  Canaan  :  no.,  not  fo  much  as  the 
foxes  ;  for  they  had  holes  to  burrow  in,  but  the  Son  of 
Nan  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head.  It  will  hence,  we 
think,  undeniably  follow,  either  that  the  promifes  nude 
to  Abraham's  feed  in  the  covenant  of  ciicumcii'-on  re- 
ferred to  Chrift,  and  had  particular  reft>eirt  to  iiim;  or 
fife  that  the  apoflle  reafoned  from  a  promife  entirely 
diftincl  from  them.  3.  lliat  the  apoftle  did  not  refer 
to  the  promifes  in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  is  fur 
ther  evident,  from  what  he  has  faid  in  the  17th  verfe  : 
And  this  I  f^yt  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before 
tf  God  in  Chr'fty  the  law  which  ivas  fur  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  difanmdy  that  it  fmdd  make  the 
promife  of  none  effeB. 

Here  are  feveral  things  v/orthy  of  confideration. 
1.  This  covenant  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chriil.  It 
confequently  ftood  independent  of  the  obedience  either 
of  Abraham  or  his  pofterity. 

2.  This  covenant,  if  confirmed  in  Chrift,  could  not 
be  broken  or  difannuUed.  There  could  in  the  nature 
of  things  be  no  failure.  Even  a  fufpicion  of  this  kind, 
would  be  derogatory  to  the  honour  and  veracity  of 
Chria. 

3.  This  promife,  which  is  the  fame  referred  to  ia 
the  29th  verfe,  the  apoftle  informs  us  was  thus  niade 
and  confirmed,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before 

2.  2 


L  43° 


262  APPENDIX.  ^ 

the  giving  of  the  law.  This  will  forever  diflinguifh  it 
from  the  promifes  in  the  covenant  of  citciimcifiou. 
For  this  was  inftituted  only  four  hundred  and  fix  years 
before  the  giving  of  the  law.  The  covenant  in  the 
xviith  chapter  of  Genefis  was  in  the  year  before  Chrift 
1897.  The  law  was  given  fourteen  hundred  and 
ninety-one  years  before  the  fame  era,  which  f  iSg;! 
leaves  but  four  hundred  and  fix.    See  the  mar-   }  '^^J 

gi"-  L  ^ 

But  the  promife  quoted  by  the  apoftle  from  Genef 
xii.  3,  v^-hich  was  made  to  Abraham  twenty-four  y< 
before,  when  he  was  in  uncircumcifion,  exaftly.  cor 
pares  with  this  ftatement  in  the  context,  of  four  hut 
dred  and  thirty  years.    This  promife,  according  to  tl 
Bible  chronology,  was  made  to  Abraham  in  the  yea 
before  Chrift,  1921.    The  law,  as.  obferved 
above,  was  given  H'91,  which  makes  exaftly 
the  time  fpecified.    See  the  margin. 

Here  the  matter  is  reduced  to  mathematical  cer- 
tainty. Any  perfon  who  will  take  the  trouble  ir.  com- 
pare the  dates  in  his  Bible,  of  the  xiith  chapter  of  Gene- 
fis, and  the  xxth  of  Exodus,  referred  to  above,  wili  feel 
himfelf  completely  fatisfied.  The  moft  invincible  prej- 
udice will  find  it  difficult  to  refift  the  light  of  denion- 
flration. 

If  the  obfervations  which  have  now  been  made  are 
correal:,  they  will  bring  us  unavoidably  to  this  conclu- 
lion,  viz.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  has  totally  miftaken  the 
promife  in  his  text,  and  reafoned  from  one  to  which 
the  apoftle  had  no  immediate  reference.  Hence  the 
whole  of  his  laboured  fuperftrufture  is  left  without 
foundation  !  The  fate  of  iuch  a  building  may  be  feea 
in  the  clofe  of  the  fixth  chapter  of  Luke.  In  order  to 
fet  afide  this  conclufion,  three  things  mufh  be  fairly 
proved. 

1.  Th;'t  the  apoftle  throughout  this  chapter  did  ac- 
tually mean  the  promife  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  -although  he  has  not  mentioned  a  iingle  paflage 
contained  in  it  ;  but  exprefsly  quoted  one  clearly  dif- 
tinguifhed  by  the  time  of  its  being  delivered,  and  al'c 
by  the  terms  and  import  of  the  projnife  itfeli. 


APPENDIX. 


2.  It  muft  be  proved,  that  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion  was  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  not- 
withftanding  fcripture  chronology  places  it  but  four 
hundred  and  lix. 

3.  That  the  feed  of  Abraham.,  mentioned  in  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion,  and  the  seed  in  whom  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  fhould  be  blefled,  were  the  fame  : 
or  in  other  words,  thit  the  feed  of  Abraham,  expreffed 
in  that  covenant,  meant  Chrift  \  for  the  apoflle  has  ex- 
prefsly  told  us  in  the  context,  that  he  was  the  perfon 
to  whom  the  promife,  from  which  he  was  then  reafon- 
ing,  exclufively  referred. 

Until  thefe  are  fairly  proved,  we  fliall  infift  upon  the 
concluCon  above  ftated.  We  have  too  good  an  opinion 
of  Mr.  Worceftcr's  candour,  to  think  that  he  will  deny 
that  he  Las  reafoned  from  the  covenant  of  circumcifion 
throughout  his  difcourfes.  If  he  can  honourably  extri- 
catehimfelf  from  theforegoing  dilemma, he  wilhmdoubt- 
edly  do  it  ;  and  in  doing  it  he  will  inftru(St  the  writer  of 
thefe  ftriftures,  and  probably  relieve  fome  of  his  breth- 
ren, who  have,  it  is  thought,  already  felt  the  difficulty. 
We  now  proceed. 

Secondly,  to  Ihow,  That  the  application  of  this 
promife  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or  to  believing 
parents  and  their  unbelieving  children,  is  unfcriptural, 
and  contrary  to  the  apoftle's  reafoning  throughout  the 
context.  The  apoftle  predicates  his  reafonings  upon  t^o 
diftinifl  topics,  viz.  upon  Abraham's  faith,  and  the  prom- 
ife made  to  him  refpefting  the  Gentile  nations.  With 
regard  to  the  firft,  he  faith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and 
it  lUMS  accounted  to  him  for  righteoufuefs.  Kno-w  ve,  there- 
fore, that  they  luhich  are  of  faith,  the  fame  are  the  children 
of  Abraham-  (Ver.  6,  1.)  Here  it  muft  be  obvious  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  Gentiles,  v/hether  young 
or  old,  cannot  claim  this  relationfhip  to  Abraham,  un- 
lefs  they  are  of  faith  :  that  is,  unlefs  they  believe  God,  as 
Abraham  did.  Viev/ed  in  this  charafter,  as  the  "  father 
of  tiie  faithful,"  and  the  fame  diftindiion  will  alfo  apply 
with  refpedt  to  his  natural  pofterity.  None  of  his 
feed  are  conlidered  as  his  children  in  this  fenfe, 
but  fuch  as  are  of  faith.    This  diftinftion  was  made  by 


ArPLNDIX. 


Chrift  hirr.felf,  \vl;eii  leafoning  witli  tlic  phnrifees, 
the  viiilli  of  John.    Feeling  theinfelves  prefTect  by  1 
argumei-its,  they  fled  to  their  ccmmon  refuge,  We 
Abrahatn^s  feed.     '^fffus  aufwered  thsnit  I  know  that  ye  or 
Abraham's  feed,  h-jt  ye  feek  to  kill  me,  hecaufe  my  luord  hat 
no  place  in  you.     If  ye  ivere  AbraJhisns  CHILDREN,  ye  ivjuid 
do  the  works  of  Abrah  im.*    The  works  of  Abraham 
comprehended  both  his  faith  and  liis  obedience  ;  and 
for  any  one  to  claim  interefk  in  him  as  theirr  father 
until  they  are  the  fubje£ts  of  faving  faith  in  Jefus 
Chrift,  would  be  equally  as  unavailing  as  the  claim 
the  rich  man,  who  addreffed  Abraham  as  his  father,  b 
could  not  obtain  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tor 
mented  tongue.f 

We  have  already  made  fome  remark;  on  the  14th 
Terfe,  but  it  comes  in  courfe  to  be  confidered  more  par- 
ticularly. The  apoftle  in  the  preceding  verfe  makes, 
this  ftatement  ;  That  <'  Chrifl  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curfe  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curfe  for  us,  that 
the  bleffing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
through  Jefus  Chrift."  Is  it  poifible  for  any  perfon  to 
fappcfie,  that  by  the  blejjlng  ef  Abraham,  the  apoftle  in- 
tended external  church  privileges  ?  fuch  as  the  bap- 
tizing, and  conflituting  children  church  members  ?  We 
cannot  think  tbefe  were  the  blelilngs  expreffedor  intend- 
ed by  the  apoftle.  For  according  to  him,  the  blefling 
of  Abraham  comes  on  the  Gentiles,  through  J'fis  Chrijl, 
and  through  no  other  medium.  But  the  blciling  of  in- 
fant baptifm,  and  infant  memberHiip,  comes  on  chil- 
dren through  their  parents  :  it  depends  altogether 
upon  them,  whether  the  children  ihali  enjoy  thefe 
bleffings  or  not.  But  according  to  the  apoftle,  They 
which  be  of faith,  are  bleffd  with  faithful  Abraham,  v/hether 
their  parents  are  believers  or  unbelievers  •,  whether 
friends  or  enemies  to  the  crofs  of  Chrift. 

According  to  Mr.  Worcefter,  if  we  underftand  him:, 
the  falvation  of  the  children  of  believers  depends  prin-- 
cipally  upon  the  "  faith  and  fidelity"  of  their  p-arents. 
His  words  ar:,  "The  promife,  then,  to  be  a  God  to. 
Abraham,  and  to  his  feed  after  him,  was  of  this  pot- 


*J'>lmv;;..  33,  37,  39. 


+  Luke  xti.  24. 


APPENDIX. 


26.5 


I  fyrt,  that  on  conJitlori  of  faith  and  fIJelitf  on  .Abra- 
ham's  part,  in  refpeft  to  his  children,  they  Oioulcl  be- 
fuhjecls  of  grace,  and  heirs  of  the  bleffings  of  the 
\n-enant.  The  fame  promife  w?s  made  to  Abraliam's 
poAeritf,  in  their  fucceTIivc  generations  and  the  lame 
IS  now  ni.xtc  to  all  true  believers,  his  adopted  children 
of  every  nation."*  This  doftrine,  we  believe,  has  been 
aflerted  by  other  Fxdobaptill  minlfters,  bejules  Mr. 
Worcefter  ;  but  we  acknowledge  freely  that  we  have  our 
doubts  refpecting  its  correftnefs.  Will  any  one  aiTert 
that  all  Abraham's  own  children  were  faved  ?  If  not, 
will  they  venture  to  fay  it  was  owing  to  his  want  of 
faith  or  felelity  towards  them  ?  Was  Ij'aac  diltinguilhed 
by  Abraham's  faith  and  fidelity  before  he  was  conceiv- 
ed in  the  womb  of  Sjrah,  -as  the  child  of  promife  ?  Or 
does  it  appear  that  Abraliam  ever  cxercifed  any  pre- 
eminent faith  or  lidelity  towards  ilaac,  mere  than  to- 
wards Ilhniael  } 

If  wedefcend  a  ftcp  further,  into  the  fam:ly  of  Ifltac, 
we  fhall  fee  flill  rtlearer  proof  of  the  incoi-reclnefs  of 
the  fentiment  under  confideration,  li  is  too  evident  to 
be  denied,  that  Ifaac  had  a  partiality  for  Efau.  It  is 
alfo  evident  that  his  faith  had  fixed  on  him  as  the  heir 
of  promife  ;  for  he  intended,  and  actually  thouglu  he 
had  given  him  the  blefling.  Yet  the  purpofe  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  election,  fuperfeded  both  his  «'  faith  and  fideli- 
ty," with  refpe^t  to  Efau,  and  gave  the  blefnng  to  Jacob. 

Will  any  one  hazard  the  allbrtion,  that  Ifaac  had  any 
different  exercife  oi faith  for  Jacob,  or  manifefted  any 
fidelity  towards  him,  which  he  did  not  towards  Efiiu  ?  Or 
was  ic  the  fovereign  ple.ifure  of  God  alone.  That  made 
Jacob  the  lot  of  his  inheritance,  rather  than  Efau,  totaliv 
independent  of  either  the  faith  or  fidelity  of  the  pious 
parents  ? 

Throughout  the  chapter  on  which  the  difcourfes 
before  us  are  founded,  the  apoftle  has  afferted  the  per- 
fnnal  intereft  of  believers,  a.-id  of  no  others  in  the  blef- 
fing  of  Abraham.  There  is  not  a  word  of  this  condi- 
tiitia!  bufiiiefs,  about  the  "  faith  and  fid;lity"'  of  parents, 
by  which  their  children  become    "  fubjedU  of  gr^ice  :" 


•  Dire  Y-  o8- 


266  APPENDIX. 

but,  according  to  the  apoftle,  both  parents  and  chil- 
dren "  become  fubjefts  of  grace,"  only  by  becoming 
believers  in  ChriO:.  This  is  being  bleffed  with  Abra- 
ham in  fome  proper  fenfe,  and  to  fome  certain  and 
valuable  purpofe. 

There  is  alio  a  very  material  diiFerence  with  refpeft' 
to  the  kind  of  faith  with  which  the  blefling  of  Abra- 
ham is  connecled.  The  apoftle  gives  no  intimation 
that  he  means  any  other  faith,  than  that  which  is  com- 
mon to  every  believer  :  that  is,  faith  in  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift:  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 
But  Mr.  "Worcefter's  faith,  to  which  the  promife  of 
God  is  cotiditiorially  made,  feems  to  be  a  faith  refpeft- 
ing  the  falvation  of  our  children.  He  reafons  thus  ; 
"  Hence,"  iuiih  he,  '<  though  in  one  refpeft  the  prom- 
ifes  of  the  covenant  are  conditional  ;  yet  in  another 
they  are  not.  Though  in  refpeft  to  individual  believ- 
ers, the  promifes  are  not  abfolute,  but  ha-ve  refpeft  to 
their  fahh  and  fidelity  as  a  cotidiiioti  ;  yet  with  rcfpedl  to 
Chrift,  and  the  church  as  one  with  him,  the  promifes 
are  yea  and  amen.  Though  God  is  not  by  covenant 
abfolutely  engaged  to  give  every  believer  that  faith  in 
the  promifes,  refpefting  his  children,  which  will  cer- 
tainly through  grace,  fecure  to  his  children,  and  all  of 
them,  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,"*  &c.  This  faith 
refpeiTting  children  is  entirely  diftinft  from  that  "faith 
by  which  Abraham  and  all  other  believers  are  juftified  : 
it  is  a  kind  of  faith  which  probably  few  believers  have  ; 
which  many  never  have,  and  which  many  never  can 
have.  A  great  proportion  of  believers  are  fingle  per- 
fons,  who  have  neither  companions  nor  children  ;  and 
many  who  marry,  live  and  die  childlefs.  None  of  thefe 
can  be  fuppofed  to  have  this  kind  of  faith.  But  we 
alk  ;  Has  not  the  blefling  of  Abraham  come  on  them 
through  Jefus  Clirift  I  Are  they  noi  hl.Jj^d  with  faithful 
Abraham  ? 

We  have  no  doubt  but  fome  believing  parents  have 
had  ftrong  faith  given  them  rerpe»n:ing  the  converfion 
of  their  children  ;  or  at  leaft  fome  of  them,  or  polH- 
bly  fome  of  their  neighbours,  or  ihdv  children.  But 
it  is  equally  evident,  that  many  have  been  fo  happy  as 


•  Difc  p  38,  39. 


APPENDIX. 


267 


:c  their  children  brought  to  know  the  Lord,  who 
\  e  never  fenfible  of  any  fpecial  faith  concerning  them 
r.rticuiar.    On  the  other  hand,  it  is  reafonable  to 
ofe,  that  that  ardent  dcfire  which  it  is  common  for 
.  s  parents  to  feel  for  the  falvation  of  their  children, 
led  them  to  believe  many  things  refpefling  them, 
h  they  never  did,  nor  ever  will  reahze.* 
Whatever  faith  parents  may  have  refpefting  their 
::ren,  it  is  certain  they  cannot  give  ihtni  faith,  and 
equcntly  cannot  convey  the  blelling  of  Abraham  to 
i.i.     This  bleffing  refts  on  npne  but  fuch  as  are 
;  :.i.mfelves  the  fubjecls  of  faith  ;  on  true  believers  only. 
This  promife  therefore  cannot,  confiftently  with  the 
jpofile's  reafoning,  be  applied  to  children  Oii  the  account 
vt  their  parents'  faith,    if  ever  they  receive  the  bUJftng 
if  Abraham,  it  will  come  on  thetn  ihrcugh  Jefus  ChriJ}  ; 
and  they  will  reft  in  a  moft  fatal  dduQon,  if  they  reft 
in  any  thing  fliort  of  this. 

"  Vain  are  the  hcpes  that  rebels  place 

Upon  their  birth  and  blood  ; 
Dd'cendcd  from  a  pious  race, 

Their  fathers  now  with  God." 

^  The  inaar.ce  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  VVhittfie'.d,  rtrpeiT-irn:  his  fon-,  ftiall 
fcrve  is  a  fpccin-en.  In  I'thruar)',  1744  (lays  Dr.  Gillies)  aa  tvenf 
happened  to  him,  which,  anudft  ull  his  fuccL-'s,  tended  to  keep  him 
hunible,  and  ferved  to  cure  iiini  of  a  wejkucfs  to  whith  lie  h.id'  been 
liable,  the  trufting  to  grourdlefs  iirprtGions.  It  v  i.s  ihc  dtath  of  his 
only  child,  concerning  whom  he  was  fo  impreffed,  th^t  he  made  no 
temple  of  dcthrinfT  before  the  birth,. that  the  child  would  be  a  fon ; 
tnd  that  he  hoped  he  v.culd  live  to  preach  the'  Gofpcl.  Several  nar- 
row cKapes,  which  Mrs.  Whitefitld  had  d-jring  her  pregnancy,  con- 
firmed him  in  his  exf  e<Satio«s  ;  whith  were  fo  high,  thst  after  he  had 
publicly  baptized  the  child  r.t  the  I  abcmacle,  all  went  away  big  with 
the  hopes*  of  his  beinp  fpartd  to  be  employed  in  the  work  of  God. 
But  thele  ford  expcili-tions  were  !o(;n  blafted  by  the  child's  death, 
xvhen  he  wr.s  about  four  moi  ths  old.  This  was,  no  doubt,  very  hum- 
bling to  the  ftther  ;  but  he  was  help?d  to  make  the  wifeft  and  beft 
improvement  of  it  "  Though  I  -m  d.r^ppoiijted,  fays  he,  (writing  to 
a  friend)  of  a  living  preacher,  by  the  death  ot  my  fon  ;  'yet  1  hope  what 
happened  bcff  re  his  birth,  ind  fnice  his  death,  has  taught  me  fuch 
IcITons,  as  if  duly  improved,  may  render  his  miftiiken  parent  more  cau- 
tiouf,  more  fcbcr  minded,  more  experienced  in  t>atan's  devices,  and 
coofcqucntly  more  ufeful  in  his  future  labours  to  tlie  church  ol  God."* 
•  Mimoiri  cftlc  life  of  the  Rev.  Get.  IVbitefcU. 


APPENDIX. 


Whether  ihclr  Withers  are  gone  to  heavea  or  n«t,  re'*- 
ligion  is  at  all  times  a  perfonal  concern.  The  rrioft  pioui 
parents  cannot  fave  their  ungodly  children.  God  de- 
clared by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  that  when  he  fiiou'd 
fend  his  judgnicnts  upon  a  finful  land,  though  Noah, 
Daniel  and  Job  were  in  ity  they  JJmtld  deliver  but  their 
6ivn  fouls  by  their  righteoufr.efs.  As  I  live,  faith  the  Lord 
God,  iheyjhjll  deliver  neither  fins  nor  d n/ghters*  Thefe 
were  three  eminent  Aiints  ;  we  flioulu  hence  Tery  nat- 
urally fuppofe,  their  children  would  derive  as  much 
ndvantape  from  tlieir  "  faith  and  fidelity,"  as  the  chil- 
dren of  f.iints  in  general  :  yet  it  feeras  that  the  children 
muft  hsvo  fome  pcrfonnl  religion,  independent  of  the'i- 
p;:rents,  to  exempt  them  froui  even  temporal  judgments  ; 
how  mach  more  to  fecurs  them  from  the  wrath  to 
come  ! 

.  I'he  fentim.erit  we  have  been  contemplating  refpctH:- 
i.;g  the  promife  of  God  made  to  Abraham,  to  his  pof- 
terity,  and  to  Gentile  believers,  to  nrake  their  children 
«•  fubjefts  of  grace,"  on  cond'ti^n  of  their  faith  and 
iidelity,"  involves,  if  we  miftake  not,  another  impor- 
tant error.  It  fappofes,  that  every  Gentile  believer, 
who  is  the  head  of  a  family,  ftands  in  the  fame  relation, 
«nd  is  entitled  to  the  lame  promifes  that  Abraham  was. 
That  every  true  believer  is  bieffed  with  the  K;me  blef- 
lings  of  pardon  and  jufllfitation,  with  interefl;  in  the 
Melli;ih,  the  prcmifed  feed,  will  be  readily  admitted  : 
but  it  does  not  hence  follow,  that  the  iam.e  promifes  are 
made  to.  them  refpe£t:ng  their  pofterity  which  were 
made  to  him.  No,  by  no  means  ;  for  this  would  con- 
ilitute  every  believing  head  of  a  family,  an  Abraham  ; 
a  patriarch  of  the  church  ;  a  father  of  the  faithful.  Is 
there  a  Mefliah  to  fprirg  from  every  believing  Lioily 
Are  all  t!ie  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  bleHed  in  their 
feed  .''  Does  the  promife  of  the  land  of  Canasn  defcend 
to  the  children  of  believers,  as  it  did  to  the  children  of 
Abraham  ?  Has  God  promifed  any  Gentile  believer 
that  his  feed  lhall  become  numerous  as  the  ftars  of 
heaven  ?  That  nations  and  kings  fliall  fpi  ing  from 
him  .'' — All  thefe  queftions  muft  be  anfwcred  in  the  ncr; 


•  Eeek.  lir.  ij  -  x6. 


APPENDIX. 


Z69 


.iLive.  It  will  hence  appear  that  by  the  fpecial  appoint- 
ment of  God,  Abraham  was  placed  in  a  fituation  difler- 
ent  from  all  other  believers  ;  and  in  this  peculiar  fit- 
uation many  things  were  promifed  to  his  feed,  which 
are  not  promifed  to  the  feed  of  other  believers. 

Cut  it  will  probably  be  faid,  we  have  mentioned  every 
thing  elfc  but  the  promife  itfelf,  which  contained  Abra- 
ham's principal  blelliiig,  and  which  has  been  tranfmit- 
ted  to  Gentile  believers,  viz.  That  God  promifed  to  be 
a  God  to  him,  and  to  his  feed.  From  the  general  tenor 
of  the  difcourfes  before  us,  we  conclude  the  author  con- 
fidered  this  as  the  promife  refen-ed  to  in  his  text. 
Hence,  to  be  Chrift's,  is  to  be  Abraham's  feed,  and  heirs 
according  to  this  promife  :  i.  e.  That  God  will  be  a  God 
to  us  and  our  feed. 

We  truft  it  has  been  made  faiHciently  evident  in  the 
preceding  page?,  that  this  could  not  be  the  promife 
intended  by  the  apoftle  ;  and  that  whatever  bleflings 
were  contained  in  this,  that  bleffing  of  Abraham  which 
is  laid  to  have  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus 
Chrift,  was  a  blefling  diftind  from  this,  and  one  which 
he  enjoyed  long  before  this  covenant  exlfted. 

The  qaeflicn  now  to  be  determined  is  this,  Does 
God  ftaud  engaged  by  covenant  to  every  believer,  to  be 
a  God  to  him  and  to  his  feed  after  him,  in  the  fame 
fenfe,  as  by  that  covenant  he  flood  engaged  to  Abraham 
and  his  feed  ?  If  a  theory  does  not  correfpond  with  faft, 
it  is  a  certain  argument  that  it  is  not  right.  We  have 
already  feen  that  a  large  proportion  of  believers  die 
without  ilTue.  If  this  promife  in  its  full  force  has  been 
tranfmitted  to  them,  it  required,  befides  their  "  faith  and 
fidelity,"  another  conditiotiy  which  the  author  of  the 
difcourfes  has  overlooked.  It  muft:  run  to  them  and 
their  feed,  provided  they  have  any.  This  prornife,  as  it 
refpefted  Abraham,  did  not  require  this  condition  ;  for 
he  had  previoufly  the  promife  of  God,  that  his  feed 
Ihould  become  as  the  duft  of  the  earth. 

To  give  a  corredl  view  of  what  is  contained  in  this 
promife,  we  fliall  quote  the  words  of  an  excellent  wri- 
ter :  "  To  afcertain  the  meaning  of  this  promife,  (faith 
he)  we  can  proceed  on  no  ground  more  certain  tkan 


270 


APPENDIX. 


faft.  It  Is  facl,  that  God  in  fucceedirg  ages  took  th^t 
feed  of  Abraham  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himfelf, 
above  all  other  nations;  not  only  giving  them  'the  land 
of  Canaan  for  a  pofTeffion,'  but  himfelf  to  be  t/jcir  God, 
King,  or  temporal  Governor.  Nor  was  this  all :  it  was 
among  them  that  he  fet  up  his  fpiritual  kingdom,  giv- 
ing them  his  lively  oracles,  fending  to  them  his  proph- 
ets, and  eftabii''!ing  among  them  his  holy  worflnp  \ 
which  great  advantages  were,  for  many  ages,  in  a  man- 
ner confined  to  them  ;  and  what  was  (till  more,  the 
threat  body  of  thcfe  who  were  eternally  faved  previoufly 
to  the  coming  of  Chrift,  were  faved  from  amongft  them. 
Thefe  things  taken  together  were  an  immenfely  greater 
favour  than  if  they  had  all  been  literally  made  kings 
ind  priefts.  Such  then  being  the  faBsy  it  is  natural  to 
luppofe  that  futh  was  the  meaning  of  the  promife."* 

•  Fuller's  Fxpclitory  Difc.  on  Gen.  xvii.  7.  To  the  above  he  fub- 
jv;iiis  t:ii  following  note. 

As  an  .'.iitipadebaptift  I  fee  no  ncccRity  for  denying  that  fpirituai 
b'tiijngt  were  proinifcd,  in  this  general  -way,  fo  li  e  natural  feed  of 
Abraham  ;  nor  can  it,  I  thick,  be  fairly  denied.  The  Lord  engaged  to 
ao  that  which  he  adtially  did  ;  namely,  to  take  out  of  them,  rather  than 
other  nations,  a  people  for  himfelf.  1  his,  I  fiippofe,  is  the  feed  proniilcd 
to  Abrahani,  to  which  the  apoftle  refers  when  he  lays,  "  They  -wliich 
ere  the  children  of  the  Pefh,  thcfe  are  not  the  children  of  God  ;  but  the 
children  of  the  promife  are  counted  for  the  feed."  (Rom.  ix.  S.)  Ey 
••■  the  children  of  the  promife"  he  ilid  not  mean  the  eIc<S:  in  general, 
tompofed  of  JeV;s  and  Gentiles,  but  the  eledl  from  amcngll  the  Jews* 
Hcr.ce  iie  rcdions  himfelf  "  an  Uraeiice,  of  the  fted  of  AbrahiDi,  and 
th.;  tribe  of  Benjamin,"  as  a  living  proof  that  "  God  had  not  cafl.  away 
"tit  people  whom  he  foreknew."    Rotni  xi.  i,  1. 

But  I  perceive  not  how  it  follows  from  hence,  that  God  has  promifed 
to  take  a  people  from  amongfi:  the  nataral  defcendants  of  believers,  in 
dlflimftion  from  others.  Wh  it  v.  as  ( roiiiiled  to  Abrahani,  v/as  neither 
promifed  nor  fulfilled  to  every  good  mr,n.  Of  the  poflcrity  of  his  kinf- 
man  Lot,  i.othirg  good  is  rccordtd.  It  is  true,  the  labours  of  thofc 
parents  who  '■  bring  up  their  children  in  the  liurture  and  adn  onition  of 
ihe  lord,"  are  ordinarily  blelTtd  to  the  converfion  offome  of  them: 
asd  the  fame  may  be  faid  of  the  labours  of  faithful  niinifters,  wherever 
providence  flations  them.  But  as  it  docs  not  follow  in  the  ene  cafe, 
that  the  g.  acclels  inhabitants  .tre  more  in  covenant  with  God  than  tliofe 
«f  i  thcr  places,  neither  does  it  follow  in  the  other,  that  the  gracelcft 
•ffspring  of  hclievtrs  are  more  in  covenant  with  God  than  thole  of  un- 
believers. "  New  Teflament  faints  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  than  the  Old  Teflament  bejicvtrj  who  lived  prior 
tt)  .\braham." 

I  am  aware  that  the  word*  of  the  apoflle  in  Gal.  iii.  14,  "  the  blelTing 
•f  Abraham  is  come  on  the  Gentiles,  through  Jefus  Chrift,"  are  alleged 


APPENDIX. 


271 


r'ais  may  be  reidily  admitted,"  with  refpect  to  Abra- 
and  his  dofcendants  ;  but  it  does  not  piove  that 
the  ume  things  are  either  engaged  or  fuHilled  to  Gen- 
tile believers.  Their  feed  is  not  diftinguilhod  by  any 
fpeclal  acts  of  Divine  Providence,  as  the  feed  of  Abra- 
ham was.  The  uncircumcifed  might  not  mingle  with 
the  circumcifed  in  the  common  a£ls  of  worfhip.  Bnt 
the  difpenfation  under  which  we  live,  has  no  law  for- 
bidding the  unbaptized,  or  even  the  irreligious  from 
attending  public  worfliip  with  the  faints.  They  are 
not  compelled  now  to  worfhip  in  the  outer  court,  but 
may  fit  upon  the  fame  feats,  and  hear  the  precious  gof- 
pel.  Circumcilion  forbade  the  ufual  civilities  of  fecial 
life  to  the  uncircumcifed  ;  but  this  is  not  the  cafe  in 
Chriftian  focieties. 

But  fhould  we  admit  this  to  be  the  promife  intend- 
ed in  the  pafTige,  on  which  the  difcourfes  before  us  are 
founded,  (which  wc  lhall  by  no  means  gr.xnt)  and  that 

in  proof  of  the  contrary.  IJiit  the  mcani»g  of  that  paffige,  I  conceiv;, 
is  not,  that  through  Jefus  Chrill  every  believer  becomej  an  Abraham,  a 
father  of  the  faitliful  ;  but  that  he  is  reckoned  among  his  children  :  not 
a  Jlock  on  which  the  f  aturc  church  fhould  grow  ;  but  a  brr.ncb,  partaking 
•f  the  root  and  fatncfj  of  the  olive  tree.  So,  however,  the  context  ap- 
pears to  explain  it — ^"  They  which  are  of  faith  are  the  cblUren  of  f.uilij  ul 
Abraham."    ver.  7. 

Bat  if  it  vrere  granted,  that  the  blclTing  of  Abraham  i«  fo  come  on 
the  beiiei-ing  Gentiles,  as  not  only  to  render  tkem  bleffcl  as  his  fpiritual 
children, but  to  infure  a  peoplj  for  God  froniamongft  their  natural  pr.f- 
"teriiy,  rather  th.\ii  frjm  thol'e  of  others  ;  yet  it  is  not  as  tJieir  n.ituml 
po:Urity  tliat  they  are  individually  entitled  to  any  onefpiritua!  bleJmt;  ; 
tor  this  was  more  than  was  true  of  the  natural  feed  of  Abrnnam  Ivor 
do  I  fee  how  it  follows  from  hence,  that  we  are  warranted  to  bantize 
them  in  their  iniancy.  Abraham,  it  if  true,  v/as  commanded  co  circum- 
cifc  l>is  male  children  ;  and  if  wc  h.id  been  commanded  to  bapti/ie  cur 
maks,  or  females,  or  both,  or  any  example  of  the  kind  had  been  lefc  in 
the  New  Teflament,  w;  Ihould  be  as  much  obliged  to  comply  in  the 
one  calc,  as  he  was  in  the  other.  But  we  do  not  think  ourfelves  wax- 
raated  to  reafon  from  circumcifion  to  baptifm  ;  from  the  circunicifioa 
of  males  to  the  baptilhi  of  m.iles  and  females  ;  and  from  the  circura- 
f.iion  of  the  children  of  a  nation,  (the  greater  part  of  whom  were  un- 
believers) and  of  "  fcrvints  born  in  the  Iioufe  or  bought  with  money," 
to  the  baptifm  of  the  children  of  believers.  In  fhor:,  we -lo  not  thinkour- 
ielves  warranted  in  matters  of  pofuivc  inllitution,  to  found  our  practice 
cn  analogies,  v/hethcr  real  or  fuppofed  ;  and  ftill  Icfs  on  one  fo  circuit- 
ous, aiiVmant,  and  uncertain  as  that  in  quellion.  Our  duty,  we  con. 
ceive,  is,  in  futh  cafes,  to  fellow  the  precepts  atd  exaniplis  of  the  dif- 
pcrjfati«n  under  which  we  live. 


272 


APPENDIX. 


it  has  defcended  to  Gentile  believers  in  the  fuUeft  ex- 
tent, yet  we  conceive  that  no  fair  inference  can  be 
drawn  from  it  in  favour  of  infant  baptifm.  For  the 
rituals  of  that  difpenfation  were  peculiar  to  it,  and 
have  nov,'  entirely  ceafed.  The  Gofpel  difpenfation 
under  which  we  live,  has  its  own  rituals  totally  uncon- 
neiSled,  and  independent  of  that.  This  will  appear  by 
this  lingle  circnmftance,  that  the  fame  perfons  who  had 
been  circumcilbd  in  infancy,  under  that  difpenfation, 
were  baptized  when  they  became  bchcvers.  If,  accord- 
ing to  our  opponents,  infant  baptifm  ccnnes  in  the  room 
of  circumcifion,  we  fee  no  reafon  why  they  fliould  not 
now  be  baptised  when  they  become  believers,  as  the 
Jewifli  converts  were  formerly.  If,  as  is  contended  for, 
circumcilton  was  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  baptifm  h 
a  feal  of  the  fame  covenant,  why  were  they  fealed  over 
a  fecond  time  ?  This  was  certainly  ^«is-fealing,  which 
would  look  quite  as  inconliftent  as  y^ra-baptifm. 

If  the  Jewilli  church  and  the  Chrillian  church  are 
th.e  fame,  where  is  the  impropriety  of  calling  the  form- 
er the  Gofpel  church,  and  the  latter  the  Jewifli  ?  or  in 
ufing  the  terms  interchangeably,  as  may  appear  moft 
convenient  ?  i^greeably  to  this,  fome  Pasdobaptifrs 
have  called  their  infant  baptifm  "  Cliriftian  circumci- 
jion."  This  is  Judaizing  with  a  witnefs.  The  lan- 
jTuage  of  Pfedobaptift  writers,  and  that  of  the  writers 
of  the  Nev/  TeAament,  vvbcn  compared  together,  will 
r.ppear  widely  different  on  !l;efe  points. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  fo  flrangely  blended  different 
tilings,  promifed  to  Abraham  at  different  times,  that 
an  incautious  reader  -  will  be  likely  to  miftake  one  for 
another.  As  a  fpecimen  of  what  may  be  found  in  va- 
rious parts  of  the  work,  the  reader  will  notice  the  fol- 
lowing paragraphs. 

«  God's  covenant  of  proraife  made  with  Abraham, 
comprifed  all  the  bieflings  and  privileges  ever  prom- 
ifed to  believers  and  the  church." 

"  /  ivi//  eJlabliJJj  my  covenant  Uttoeen  me  and  thee  and 
thy  feed  after  thee,  fays  the  Lord  to  Abraham,  for  an 
everlajling  covenant,  TO  BF.  A  GoD  UNTO  THEE  AND  TO 
THv  SEED  AFTER  TiiEE."    This  is  the  moft  extcnfive 


APPENDIX. 


273 


pi  o.Tiife  in  the  covenant  of  circu'.ncllion.  But  dul  this 
"  CO  nprife  all  the  bleliings  and  privileges  ever  promife J 
to  believers  ?"  It  certainly  did  not.  Nor  did  Mr. 
Worcefter  feel  willing  to  relt  his  aff;rtion  upon  this  ; 
but  has  fubjoined  another  promife  made  to  Abraham 
long  before  the  coven?.nL  to  which  he  refers  exilled ; 
and  which  was  renewed  to  him,  and  to  Ifaac  and  Jacob 
afcerwards.  This  promife  he  has  given  us  in  the  fol- 
lo  A-ing  words,  «  and  in  thee,  and  in  thy  s:;ed  shall 

ALL  THE  NATIONS  OF  THE   EARTH  BE  BLESSED."  (page 

1  +.)  This  promife,  indeed,  comprifes  every  thing,  be- 
caufe  it  comprifes  the  Melliah,  the  seed  in  whom  fome 
of  all  nations  fliall  be  bleffed.-  But  this  forms  no  part 
of  the  covenant  of  ci>  cumcifion,  though  coartantly 
blended  in  the  difcourfes  before  UJj  as  if  it  were  one 
of  the  moil  prominent  articles  in  it. 

The  author  of  thefe  difcourfes  feems  to  anticipate  in- 
numerable diiHculties,  on  the  fuppoiition  that  the  Gof- 
pcl  church  commenced  with  the  prefent  difpenfation. 
«'If,"  faith  he,  "  the  covenant  m  .de  with  Abraham  has 
been  difannuUed,  and  the  church  formed  by  it  abo!- 
ifhed  ;  if,  on  the  introduction  of  the  Chriftian  difpenfa- 
tion, a  new  church  was  formed,  and  a  new  covenant  in- 
ilituted,  materially  different  from  that  made  witli  Abra- 
ham ;  in  what  important  refpecl  can  Abr.iham  be  con- 
lidered  as  the  father  of  Chriftian  believers  ?"  He  fur- 
ther adds ;  "If we  be  members  of  a  different  church, 
formed  by  a  different  covenant  from  that  of  Abraham, 
what  relation  have  we  to  Abraham  ?  In  what  refpect 
are  we  his  children  ?  How  is  it  that  we  are  bleffed  with 
him  ?  that  we  are  heirs  according  to  the  promife  made 
lo  him  ?"  (page  12.) 

All  thefe  difficulties  we  think  will  be  obviated  and 
removed,  by  correcting  a  very  eflential  error  in  his 
next  pai-agraph.  In  this,  if  we  miftake  not,  he  has 
mifquoted  the  Apoftle's  words,  mifapplicd  them,  and 
made  him  give  a  verv  important  conclufion,  without 
any  premifes  !  "  Theie,"  fays  the  reader,  "  are  charges 
of  confiderable  magnitude  :  they  ought  therefore  to  be 
made  out  fairly,  or  retraced."  We  engage  to  do  one 
cr  the  other.    The  quotation  to  which  we  refer  is 


Aa  2 


'^■71.  APPENDIX.  1 

in  the  following  words  :  "  He  received  ihe  fign  of  circum-  J 
tfton,  a  feal  of  the  nghifcufncfs  ojfaithy  that  Hii  MIGHT  .1 
BE  THE  FATHER  OF  ALL  THEM  THAT  BELIEVE,  THOUGH  | 
THEY  BE  NOT  CIRCUMCISED."    (page  J.'2.)      That  the  \ 
reader  may  better  judge,  we  will  give  the  paragraph 
entire.  ] 
"But  Abraham  was  made  the  father  of  many  na-  | 
tions  ;  and  all  who  are  of  faith  are  his  children,  and 
»re  blefied  with  him.    This  is  according  to  the  cove- 
nant of  promife  which  God  made  with  Abraham." 
This  is  all  very  well,  but  he  adds,  "  He  received  the f.gn 
of  circumcftotJi  a  feal  of  the  iighteouftiefs  ef  faith,  THAT 
HE  MIGHT  BE  THE  FATHER  OF    ALL   THEM   THAT  BEt 
LIEVE,  THOUGH   THEY   BE   NOT  CIRCUMCISED,  though 

they  be  not  his  natural  pofterity,  that  righteous- 
ness MIGHT  BE  imputed  TO  THEM  ALSO."  If  iNlr. 
Worcefler  is  correft,  it  was  Abraham's  circumcilion, 
and  not  his  faith,  which  conftituted  him  the  father  of 
believers  ! 

The  paffage  here  referred  to,  is  Rom.  iv.  11.  And 
we  complain,  1.  That  the  words  are  mifquoied'  To 
prove  this,  we  need  only  compare  them  witli  the  facred 
text.  Mr.  Worcefter  fays,  "  a  feal  of  the  righteoufuefs  of 
faiths  that  he  might  be  a  father,  &c."  The  apoftls  fays, 
a  feal  of  the  righieotfnefs  of  THE  faith  "which  he  had,  yet 
being  ttncircumcifed.  Although  the  words  hs  had,  are- 
not  in  the  original,  they  are  neceffhrily  implied  andj 
underftood,  as  in  cur  tranflation.  Had  the  words  been 
quoted  as  they  are  read  in  our  Bibles,  they  would  have 
conveyed  quite  a  different  meaning.  We  do  not  infifk 
that  an  author  fhould  always  quote  fcripture  verbatim, 
but  if  hiy  variations  give  a  different  fenfe,  he  is  certaift,. 
ly  accountable  for  it. 

2.  We  complain  that  the  words  are  mlfapplied. 
They  are  applied  as  they  ftand  in  the  Bible,  only  to 
Abraham.  Circumcifion  was  a  feal  to  Abraham  of  his 
faith,  but  it  is  not  faid  to  be  fuch  to  his  pofterity,  or  to 
any  other  perfon  upon  earth.  Mr.  Worcefter  has  madp 
it  a  feal  of  the  righteoufiiefs  of  faith  generally.  What  faith 
can  it  be  fuppofed  that  an  infant  has  of  eight  days  old  ? 
Was  there  any  faith  fealed  to  fuch  ?  WJj?t  fiiith  was 

i 


APPENDIX, 


t  fealed  to  a  fervaiit  bought  with  tnonej,  who  had  been 
brought  up  in  idohtry,  and  perhaps  (till  attached  to  it, 
only  compelled  to  conform  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews, 
becaufe  he  was  a  llave  ?  No  man  believes  that  either  of 
the  two  were  fubjefts  of  filth.  How  then,  we  a^k,  was 
circumclfion  -a  leal  of  the  rig-hteoufnefs  of  faith  to 
them  ?  But  it  will  be  faid,  that  God  commanded  them 
to  be  circumcifed,  and  therefore  it  mufr  have  been 
right.  With  this  we  fully  agree ;  but  God  has  no 
where  (laid  that  it  was  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of 
faith  to  them.  A  man  may  as  well  believe  that  every 
baptized  infant  is  lealed  with  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith, 
though  he  mayafterwards  prove  to  be  a  profligate  infidel, 
as  that  circumcifion  placed  them  in  this  privileged  con- 
dition. He  muft  give  up  his  common  fenfe  to  believe 
either.  We  therefore  conclude,  that  if  IMr.  Worcefter's 
word-;  mean,  what  the  fame  expreilions  mean  when  ufed 
by  others,  he  has  appiied  an  expreSion  generally,  which 
the  npaftie  appiied  only  in  a  particular  cafe  j  which  v/e 
confider  as  a  mifapplication  of  the  text. 

3.  We  have  charged  Mr.  Worcefcer,  with  making 
the  apoftle  eoiKliuh  •without  prcmifes.  This  we  are  now 
to  make  out.  In  order  to  render  it  plain  to  every  ca- 
pacity, we  will  again  fet  down  his  quotation.  "  He  re- 
ceived the  fign  of  ciixumcilion,  a  feul  of  the  righteoaf- 
nefs  of  faith,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  ail  them 
that  believe,  though  they  be  net  circumcifed,"  The 
apoftle  is  here  made  to  fay,  that  Abraham  was  circum- 
cifed, fo  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  believers  that 
are  uncircumcifed  !  We  alk,  in  the  name  of  common 
fenfe,  why  it  v/as  necefTary  for  Abraham  to  be  circumr 
f  'lpd^  in  order  to  conftitute  him  the  father  of  believers 
.that  are  utich  ciimc  'ijcd  ?  If  there  can  be  any  other  mean- 
ing to  the  argument,  as  Mr.  V/orcefter  has  phced  it  be- 
fore the  public,  we  confefs  we  have  not  difcernment 
enough  to  fee  it.  But  is  it  poOible  that  the  apoftle 
ihould  reafon  at  this  rate  He  certainly  did  not.  He 
is  placed  in  this  awkward  fituation  only  for  the  want  of 
having  his  argument  fairly  prefented.  In  order  to  fee 
the  force  of  his  reafoning,  the  following  words  v/hich  be- 
gin the  quotation,  ought  to  be  confidered  as  a  parenthc- 


276 


APPENDIX. 


fis,  as  they  really  are,  viz.  ( Aud  he  received  the  fign  if 
circumcifion,  a  feal  of  the  righttoufuefs  of  the  fiiih  'which  l 
had,  yet  being  uncircumcifed.)  The  fenfe  of  the  paffr.:, 
will  then  be  plain.  I'he  apoftle  fta.tes  his  argumem 
thus :  For  ive  fay,  that  faith  luas  reckoned  to  Abraham  fr 
righteoufticfs.  Hoiu  luas  it  then  reckoned  ?  •when  he  ivas  in 
circumcifion,  or  in  uncircumcifion  ?  not  in  circumcifion,  hut 
in  uncircumcifion,  (and  he  received  the  fign,  &c.)  that 
he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they 
be  not  circumctfed."  Here  the  argument  refumes  its 
native  force,  and  teaches  us  that  faith  was  reckoned  to 
Abraham  for  righteoufnefs,  when  he  was  in  uncircum- 
cifion; fo  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  other  be- 
lievers, though  they  be  not  circumcifed.  Not  that  he- 
received  circumcifion,  "  for  this  very  puri-osk,"  as. 
Mr.  Worcefter  ailerts  (page  11)  to  qualify  liim  to  be  the 
father  of  uncircumcifed  Gentile  believers. 

For  what  purpofe^  it  may  be  aiked,  was  the  apoftie's 
argument  in  this  m.utilated  form  introduced  into  the 
difcourfes  before  "cs  undoubtedly,  to  give  force  to  the 
covenant  of  circumcifion.  If  it  were  circumciaoa 
that  conftituted  Abraham  the  father  of  believers,  it 
would  attach  a  degree  of  connJeration  to  that  rite,,- 
which  it  would  not  otlierwife  poiFefs.  In  this  way,  it 
is  thought  to  aid  the  caufe  of  infant  baptifm.  But  we 
aflc,  was  it  net  Abraham's  faith  wliich  he  had  long  be- 
fore his  circumcifi-on,  which,  according  to  the  apoftle's 
argument,  conftituted  him  the  father  of  the  faithful  I 
He  being  the  firft  that  fubmitted  to  that  rite,  might 
conftitute  him  the  father  of  the  circumcfnn  ;  but  it  was 
bis  FAITH  that  conftituted  him  the  father  of  believers- 
It  is  conceived  that  the  author  of  the  difcourfes.^ 
might  with  as  much  propriety  have  argued  from  this. 
palTage  in  his  context  : — For  it  is  written,  Curfed  is  every 
ene  that  hangeth  on  a  tree  ;  that  the  hleffing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  fefus  Chv'ft"*  It 
Avould  be  impofllble  here  to  fee  the  propriety  of  this 
conclufion  as  it  now  ftands  before  us :  it  is  equally  fo 
in  the  one  which  Mr.  Worcefter  has  introduced  above. 
But  place  this  in  its  proper  order,  and  it  will  alfo  re- 


*  Gal,  iii.  13,  14. 


APPENDIX. 


277 


fume  its  nntlve  force.  The  argument  flands  thus. 
Chri/1  hath  redeemed,  us  from  the  curfe  of  the  law^  bang 
made  a  curfe  for  us :  (for  it  is  witten,  Curfed  is  evei-y  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree  :)  that  the  h'ejfing  of  Ahrah.xm 
might  come  cn  the  Gentiles  through  Jcftis  Chrijl.  The 
blelling  of  Abraham  does  not  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
'  "ciufe  every  one  is  curfed  who  hangeth  on  a  tree  ; 

.  becaufe  Chrift  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  cirfe  of 
:  .  law.  So,  neither  was  Abraham  by  be;ng  circum- 
ciied  conftituted  the  father  of  believing  Ge:  tiles  who 
are  uncircumcifed  ;  but  by  believing  God,  and  having 
'  h  reckoned  to  him  for  righteoufnefs,  when  he  was 
Lincircumcifion.  We  now  leave  it  with  a  candid 
;  iblic  to  determine,  whether,  in  his  zeal  to  fupport  his 
hypothecs,  Mr.  Worcefter  has  not  entirely  miftalcen  and 
niifreprefented  the  apoftle's  argument,  and  finally  drawn 
a  conclufion  favourable  to  his  own  fcheme,  but  drawn 
it  without  any  premifes. 

From  Mr.  Worcefter's  arguments  thus  corre£ted,  we 
fee  nothing  which  leads  to  the  condiifion  that  the  gofpel 
churcli  (coiapofed  of  profeJing  believers  only,)  may  not 
be  confiderod  as  the  children  of  Abrahtim,  not  by  circum- 
cifioL!,  but  by  f.iith,and  ccm\>\(A.c\v  hhfj'ed  in  him  through 
Jefus  Chrifi ;  notv,  irhftmding  the  covenant,  which  con- 
tained circumciiion.  and  all  the  other  Jewifh  rites,  has 
•waxid  old  and  vctnif  :d  /r;.  :iy-  if  our  relation  to  Abra- 
ham can  be  fuftained  on  i  o  '.etter  ground,  than  that 
we  have  had  the  feal  of  th^  covenant,  as  it  is  called, 
applied  to  us  in  our  infancy,  (whether  by  cii-cumcilion 
or  b.iptifm  it  matters  not,)  it  will  leave  us  in  the  iame 
wretched  condi'ion  of  the_  unbelieving  Jews.  Let  us 
not  deceive  ourfelves  by  fpending  our  efforts  in  defend- 
ing the  lliadow,  whilft  we  give  up  the  fubftance. 

Tk-y  which  be  of  faith,  faith  the  apoftle,  are  hlelfed 
•with  faithful  Abraham  ;  and  they  ivhich  are  of  faith, 
the  fame  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  The  fcriputre  hath 
concluded  all  under  fin,  that  the  promise  by  faijh  of  Je- 
sus  Christ  might  be  givf.n  to  them  that  believe. 
Far  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Jefus  Chrijl. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Chrijl,  have 
put  en  Chrijl.    There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  ft 


275  APPENDIX. 

neither  bond  ncr  free^  there  is  neither  male  nor  fetnnle  j  foryg^ 
mre  all  nne  in  Chrijl  Jcfus.  And  if  ytr  be  Chri/i's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  feeJ^  and  heirs  according  to  the prctnife'''  Every 
fentence  which  we  have  now  quoted,  feems  to  look, 
with  a  forbidding  afpeft  upon  the  membcrfliip  and 
baptifm  of  unbelievers.  If  the  apoftle  had  really  de- 
figned  to  have  barred  the  claim  of  infants,  and  all  other 
unbelievers,  he  could  fcarcely  have  ufed  language  more 
decifive.  He  has  firft  informed  us  that  Abraham  was 
blefled  in  believing  God.  He  believed  the  gofpel  that 
was  preached  to  !iim,  concerning  his  feed,  the  Mefliah, 
in  whom  all  fumiUes  of  the  earth  fJjould  be  blejfed.  This 
glorious  promife  has  been  fulfilling  for  ages  ;  and  the 
blefling  of  Abraham  ftill  comes  on  the  Gentiles  through 
Jefus  Chritl,  and  through  no  other  medium. 

The  apoftle  is  particularly  careful  to  eftablifh  this 
point,  that  Abraham's  Jaith  vjas  reckoned  to  him  for  right- 
eoufnefs,  nvhen  he  tvas  in  uncircumcifion.  By  this  he  has 
excluded  circumciiion  from  cUaining  the  fmalleft  fhare 
of  honour  in  the  falvatlon  of  Abraham,  or  in  kis  being 
the  fiUher  of  other  believers.  He  appears  equally 
cautious  in  difcriminating  the  characters  who  are  blelT- 
ed  with  Abraham.  His  language  is,  That  God  ivonld 
juflify  the  heathen  through  faith.  He  adds,  Zo  then,  THEY 
IVHICH  BE  OF  F,U7'H  are  Ucjfed  luith  faithful  Abraham. 
Again,  Th.it  the  blt'/ft/ig  of  ylbrahain  might  come  on  the  Gen- 
tiles THROUGH  Jesus  Ciii'.isT.  We  muft  find  fomechiug 
more  favourable  to  unbelievers  than  wljat  is  here  ex- 
prefled,  or  we  fliall-be  as  unable  to  blels  theni,  as  Ifirac 
was  Efau,  aftdr  he  had  given  the  blefling  cxclufively 
to  Jacob. 

Still  to  imprefs  the  feni:iment  more  deeply,  the  apoftle 
again  refumes  his  fubjefl  towards  the  dole  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  adds  ;  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  ^  by  faith 
in  Chrifl  Jefus.  Not  by  defcending  from  Abraham,  nor 
any  other  believer  •,  nor  by  any  external  rite  whatever. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Chrifiy  have 
put  on  Chrifl.  This  language  agrees  perfe£lly  with  the 
idea  of  thoir  being  all  profeflbrs.  But  how  a  paflive 
infant,  of  eight  days  old,  can  be  faid  to  put  on  Chrifl,  to 
us  is  inconceivable.    It  might  be  fald  of  fuch  as  are  bap- 


APPENDIX. 


'.zed  in  Infancy,  that  Chrift-,  that  Is,  his  name  is  put 
>  n  them,  without  either  their  knowledge  or  confent ; 
:  how  it  can  he  rendered  actively,  yen  have  put  on 
\%  difficult  to  reconcile  either  to  coirmon  fenfe 
'.  r  to  truth.     There  is  lu  'ther  Jew  nor  G'  -  elc,  there  is 
'cr  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  f.;mle  ;  FOR 
ARE  ALL  ONE  IN  Ckrist  Jesus.    "W'.at  !  whole 
'ihes !  believing  parents  (at  lead:  one  of  them)  and 
i-'ciieving  children?   faints  and  finners,  all  one  in 
■jl  ?  Strange  union  indeed  !  V/lmt  communion  hath 
■    r:t  iviih  dcrhnifs  ?  and  iuh.it  coficcrd  hath  Chriji  noith 
Belial  ?  or  ivhat part  hath  he  that  telievrth  ivith  an  infidel?* 
If  S*.  Paul  were  to  addrefs  a  modern  congregation, 
where  perhaps  feven-eighths  of  them  had  been  baptizied 
in  infancy,  could  he  with  propriety  addrefs  them  as  he 
did  thefe  Galatian  Chriftians  :  j^s  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Chrifl,  have  put  on  ChriJl  ?  Te  are  all  one 
in  Chr'ifl  ?  Do  Pjcdobaptift  Chriftians  themfelves  believe 
this  of  their  families  ?  Do  they  believe  that  their  bap- 
tized but  unregenerate  children  have  put  on  Chrift  ? 
That  they  and  their  children  of  this  dcfcription  are 
all  one  in  Chrift  Jefas  ?   They  certainly  do  not  treat 
them  as  if  they  believed  any  fuch  thing ;  nor  can  we 
fuppofe  they  do  ferionfly  believe  it.    Yet  if  they  do 
hot  believe  it,  will  they  not  feel  this  conviiTtinn,  that 
their  churches  differ  eflentiaily  from  thafe  in  the  apof- 
tolic  age  ?  As  the  rpoftlcs  themfelvcs  did  not  profcfs 
to  know  the  hearts  of  others,  the  language  addrefied  to 
the  Galatians,  would  be  proper  to  any  body  of  baptized 
profefTors  who  acted  in  character  as  Chriftians. 

It  only  remains  here  to  obferve  a  few  words  upon  the 
text  itfelf.  And  if  ye  he  Chrifsi  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
feed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  prcmifc. 

We  have  already  fcen  that  the  promife  here  men- 
tioned did  not  refer  to  the  covenant  of  circumcHion, 
but  to  a  previous  promife  made  to  Abraham,  and  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Chrift.  We  have  alfo  feen  that  be- 
lievers only,  or  fuch  as  are  of  faith,  arc  confidered  as 
partaking  in  the  bleflings  of  tliat  promife.  Cut  If  there 
were  nothing  in  the  context  to  detcrmnie  us  with  re- 


*  &  Cor,  vi.  14,  15. 


289 


APPENDIX. 


gard  to  the  fubjeft,  one  would  fuppofe  that  the  text  it- 
felf  fpeaks  a  language  irreconcileable  to  the  dcdrine  of 
infant  baptifm.*  If  ye  be  Chriji's  this  deterniines  cur 
title  to  the  bleffing.  This  determined  the  title  of  our 
anceftors,  and  this  will  determine  the  title  of  our  chil- 
dren. But  the  author  of  the  difcourfes  has  advocated 
a  fentiment  exceedingly  dift'erent  from  this  :  it  implies 
the  following  ;  If  ye  parents,  one  or  both  of  you,  be 
Chrifl^s,  then  are  ye,  and  all  your  children,  Abraham^ s  feedy 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promfe.  But  it  will  be  aiked, 
In  what  fenle  can  unconverted  Gentiles  be  confidered 
as  the  children  of  Abraham  ?  What  promlfe  has  God 
ever  made  to  Abraham  of  fpiritual  bleffings,  that  un- 
converted Gentiles  may  claim,  by  right  of  heirlhip  ? 
The  anfwer  muft  be,  None  at  all. 

Indeed  it  is  believed  that  Mr.  Worcefter  himfelf 
has  fully  conceded  this  very  point,  notwithllanding  all 
his  laboured  arguments  to  prove  that  the  baptized 
children  of  Gentile  believers  are  Abraham's  feed. 
His  words  are,  "To  become  entitled  then  to  the  blef- 
fings of  the  covenant,  Abraham  muft  walk  before  God, 
and  be  perfeft  ;  inufi:  have  true  f  ajth,  and  be 
terdy  obnUent.  This  was  neceffary  as  it  refpedted  him- 
felf perfonally,  and  equally  neceffary  as  it  rcfpcBed  his  chil- 
driv"  (page  36.)  If  "  t:  ue  faith"  was  necelTary  to  en- 
title Abraham  and  his  children  to  the  bltfilngs  of  the 
covenant.  Is  not  the  fame  neceffary  for  us  and  our  chil- 
dren ?  This  perfectly  agrees  with  the  language  of  the 
apoftle  In  the  text,  as  we  underftand  him.  if  y-: 
Chriji's,  that  is,  have  "true  faith"  in  him,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  feed,  ^c.  No  Baptift,  we  believe,  ever  dif- 
puted  but  that  all  fuch,  whether  3'oung  or  old,  us  have 
true  faith  in  Chrirt.are  Abraham's  fpiritual  feed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promlfe,  tiiat  all  nations  fliould  bs 
blefled  in  his  seed.    It  appears  to  us,  that  many  of  our 

*  '}  liis  tot  flavds  fo  fcnt!n;cntally  oiijoftd  to  infant  bjytifm,  that  it 
has  httn  a  1  tt't  furpr;f;r.g  that  Mr.  Vi  orcdler  fiiould  choofc  it  as  the 
founcation  oi  li'u  diic<  urk-s.  Kc  mult,  we  conceive,  have  thought  it 
wore  frieiKlly  to  liis  lubjcct  tlisn  it  appears  to  ii'; :  for  we  ir«  unwilling 
to  fiipfi'Ic  he  cholf  it  Uj  on  the  principle  which  Sociatcs  is  faid  to  have 
ch.'ifsn  orve  cf  his  wives,  tlie  noted  Xr,titrj>/'e,  (ore  o{  the  Aowardeft 
women  in  the  world)  i.  e.  /« Jiotn  khjli/l  in  nana^ing  her. 


APPENDIX.  "  2S1 


P«dubaptift  brethren  miftake  the  fubjeri;  on  this  ground. 
That  tlie  promiies  which  were  raado  to  Abraham, 
which  refpeded  his  fpirilual feed  only,  they  apply  indif- 
criminately  to  the  natural  feed  of  Gentile  believers. 

In  the  ninth  of  Romans  it  is  faid,  They,  are  tict  all  If- 
rael  ivho  are  of  Ifrasl ;  neither,  bccaufe  thcj  are  the  feed  of 
Abrtham,  are  they  all  children.  They  iiho  are  the  children 
»f  the  jlifii  thefe  are  not  the  children  of  God  :  but  the  chil- 
dren of  the  proinife  are  counted  for  the  fed.*  Are  not  the 
children  of  Gentile  believers,  children  of  the  f-ep,  as 
really  as  others  ?  If  fo,  the  apoftle  has  decided  the 
point,  that  they  are  not  the  children  of  God,  nor  the 
feed  of  Abraham  :  fcr  the  children  cf  the  promife  are 
counted  for  the  feed.  By  thefe  we  think  no  perfon  can 
doubt,  but  the  apoftle  meant  fpiritual  perfons,  as  dif- 
tinguiOied  from  the  children  of  the  fleOi.  This  perfect- 
ly correfponds  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  fcrip- 
tures.  This  will  alio  aflift  us  in  determining  who  are 
intended  by  Abraham's  feed  in  the  text. 

On  the  whole,  we  cannot  perceive  that  a  fingle  blef- 
fing  is  promifed  to  any  unbehever,  throughout  the 
whole  chapter  on  which  the  difcourfes  are  founded. 
We  therefore  conclude,  that  the  author,  in  applying 
them  to  believing  parents,  and  their  unbeUeving  off- 
fpring  ;  and  by  endeavouring  to  prove,  that  they  are 
all  Abrahartis  feed,  and  heirs  aicording  to  the  pr:,mife,  has 
applied  them  in  a  fenfe,  which  neither  the  fcriptures 
in  general,  nor  the  apoftle's  reafoning  throughout  the 
context,  will  juftify.  The  reader  will  judge,  whether  the 
preceding  reafoning  will  fupport  this  concluCon  or  not. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  we  propofed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  thefe  ftriclures  to  attempt  the  proof  of  two 
points  : 

1.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  had  niiftr.ken  the  pro.nife 
in  his  text,  and  reafoned  from  one  totally  different  from 
the  one  which  the  apofde  reafontd  from. 

2.  Wc  propofed  to  fliow,  that  his  application  of 
the  promife  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or  to  believ- 
ing parencs  and  unbeUeving  children,  was  unfcriplural, 
and  contrary  to  the  apoftle's  reafoning. 

•  Rom,  jx.  6—1. 
B  b 


APPENDIX. 


On  the  firft,  we  have  fhov/n,  that  the  promhe  qaoied 
by  the  apoftle  was  dlftinft,  in  its  nature  and  defign, 
from  the  oae  on  which  the  difcourfes  are  founded  ; 
and  that  the  time  at  which  it  is  flated  to  have  been 
given,  will  not  agree  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion. 

On  the  fecond,  we  have  fhown,  that  by  the  apoftle's 
reafoning  in  the  context,  and  other  fcriptures,  the 
blefling  of  Abraham  is  annexed  only  to  faith  :  That  it 
comes  pn  Gentile  believers  indivlduallv,  and  not  other- 
wife  :  That  parents,  by  faith  in  Jefus  Chrifr,  may  en- 
joy the  bkffing  of  Abraham,  v.'hile  their  unbelieving 
children  lie  under  all  the  miferies  of  the  curie  :  That 
the  blefling  of  Abraham  comes  on  believing  children, 
through  Jefus  Chrjlt  and  not  through  their  parents  : 
That  they  are  not  laved  by  their  parents'  faith,  but  by 
their  own. 

If  the  two  preceding  points  have  been  demonftrated, 
it  is  all  that  we  undertook.  We  do  not  pretend  to 
have  conlidered  all  Mr.  Worcester's  arguments,  nor  to 
have  expofcd  all  his  errors.  Our  limits  forbid  that  w  e 
fliould  enlarge  on  this  part  of  the  fubjeft.  "We  have 
confcientioully  endeavoured  not  to  mifreprefent  his  fen- 
timents  ;  if  it  Ihould  be  found,  in  any  inftance,  to  be 
the  cafe,  it  will  be  iincerely  regretted  when  pointed 
out. 

May  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  that  Spirit  which 
was  promifed  by  Jefus  to  his  difciples,  diicover  to  each 
of  us  his  errors,  by  hadi/ig  us  into  the  truth.  And  may 
we  be  alv/ays  ready  to  receive  the  truth,  whenever  it  is 
prefented  to  our  minds,  although  it  may  crofs  our 
preconceived  opinions.  If  we  love  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  v/e  are  folemnly  bound  to  keep  his  command- 
ments. In  order  to  this,  we  muft  be  wiping  to  know 
what  they  are,  and  how  they  are  to  be  obferved.  And 
lot  us  fee  to  it,  that  we  do  not  make  void  his  command- 
ments through  our  tradition. 

To  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion,  the  preceding  re- 
marks are  cheerfully  fubmitted.  And  were  it  not  for 
fome  charges  particularly  brought  againft  our  denom- 
ination in  the  difcourfes  before  us,  we  fnculd  here  take 


APPEND  EX. 


tiar  leave  of  them  •,  but,  under  prefent  circumfiances, 
\vc  iliould  be  wanting  to  ourfelves,  not  to  attempt  a 
▼indication.  We  mull  therefore  aik  the  reader's  pa- 
tience a  Httle  longer,  hoping  that  he  will  candidly  at- 
tend to  what  we  have  to  fay  to  the  things  laid  to  our 
charge,  and  then  judge  whether  they  ought  to  be  placed 
to  our  account  or  not. 


SECTION  VI. 

Hit  Baptijls  vindicated  from  the  Charges  brought  (igaliiji 
them  by  the  Rev.  Samuel  Worcejler. 

To  reprove  a  Chriftian  brother,  and  to  do  it 
in  the  temper  of  the  gofpel  ;  and  efpecially,  when  we 
feel  ourfelves  injured  by  the  faults  which  call  for  re- 
proof, is  by  no  means  one  of  the  leaft  difficult  duties  of 
our  holy  religion. 

If  the  things  of  which  we  are  about  to  complain  had 
emanated  from  avowed  enmity,  or  had  been  vocifer- 
ated only  by  the  tongue  of  flander,  they  had  never 
excited  any  other  emotions  in  our  minds,  than  pity  and 
lilent  contempt  :  but  when  thev  are  ufnered  upon  the 
public,  as  undeniable  facts,  and  fanftioned  too  by  ail 
the  gravity  of  the  pulpit,  they  aiTume  a  very  frrioUs  and 
dangerous  afpeft,  and  imperioufly  call  us  to  ielt-defence. 

Our  hmits  will  not  allow  us  to  animadvert  on  nil  that 
INIr.  Worcefter  has  faid  againit  us  ;  and  even  the  few 
articles  which  we  do  touch  upon,  we  are  obliged  to  han- 
dle with  great  brevity. 

Without  particularly  noticing  feveral  preceding  re- 
marks, in  which  he  probably  aimed  his  ihafts  at  the 
Baptifts  ;  yet,  as  he  neither  named,  nor  hit  any  one, 
we  fiiall  proceed  to  what  is  directly  applied  to  us. 

1.  In  a  note,  page  23,  we  are  charged  with  imbib- 
ing the  error  of  the  old  "  legal  Jews,"  by  uiifcripturally 
blending  the  covenant  of  circumcifion  made  with  Abra- 
ham, and  what  is  called  the  Sinai  covenant,  together. 


284 


APPENDIX. 


This  charge  comes  rather  with  an  ill  grace,  from  a 
man,  who  has,  throughout  the  difcourfes  before  us,  con- 
ilnntly  blended  the  promifes  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cilion,  with  the  promife  of  the  Meffiah,  made  to  Abra- 
ham, years  before  that  covenant  exifted.  From  this 
"  unfcriptural  blending"  of  thcfe  two  covenants,  which 
in  their  nature  are  every  way  diftindl,  it  is  thought,  he 
has  given  the  chief  plaufibility  to  his  arguments,  which 
they  poflefs.  Had  he  confined  himfelf  to  the  covenant 
of  circunicifion,  he  could  not  with  propriety  have  infer- 
red thofe  great  bleffings,  wliich  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
through  Jefus  Chrill,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 

But  if  Mr.  Worccfter  has  done  wrong,  in  blending 
two  covenants  which  are  really  difiinct,  it  will  by  no 
means  exculpate  the  Baptifts,  if  they  have  been  guilty  of 
the  fame.  How  far  thii  charge  can  be  fupported  we 
know  not.  Had  it  been  accompanied  by  the  words  of 
the  writers  referred  to,  we  could  more  readily  hare 
iudged  of  its  accuracy-  This  would  alfo  have  given 
the  perfons  implicated,  if  living,  an  opportunity  to 
have  vindicated  themfelves.  But  it  now  refls  upon  the 
denomination  at  hirge. 

In  reply,  we  can  only  fay,  we  know  of  no  writer  on 
our  fide  of  the  controverfy,  who  has  blended  the  cov- 
enants referred  to,  any  farther  than  the  fcriptures  have 
blended  them.  What  Mr.  Worcefter  and  other  Paedo- 
baptili;  v/riters  call  the  Si/jni  conennrit,  wants  definin^i;. 
They  fometimes  fpeak  of  it  in  fuch  a  way  as  would 
naturally  lead  us  to  fuppofe,  they  meant  the  ten  com- 
mandments, or  moral  law.  But  furely  thefe  commands 
tre  not  aboliflied The  moral  precepts  of  that  law 
given  from  Sin.ii  can  never  be  abrogated.  If  by  the 
iSinai  covenant,  tlicy  mean  what  the  apoflle  calls,  Thu 
Innv  cf  cimir.andtneiiis.  ccntaitied  in  cyclinancct  ;*  we  aik, 
AVas  not  circumcilion  blended  with  thefe  ordinances 
Yea,  was  not  this  the  principal  article  which  occaGon 
ed  the  "  enmity"  between  Jews  and  Gcp.tiles,  which 
Chrift  by  the  Gofpel  difpcnfation  and  by  his  death 
abolifhed  ?  That  circumcifion  was  blended  with  the 
ritual  of  Mofes,  is  clear  from  the  words  of  Chriil  t« 


•  FfK  ii.  IS. 


APPENDIX. 


285" 


the  Jews.  Mofes  therefore,  faid  be,  g  've  iint:pu  drcum- 
djton  (not  bccaufe  it  is  of  Mofes,  but  of  the  fathers) 
mnd  ye  on  the  fahbath-ilay  c'lrcumrife  a  man.  If  a  man  on 
the  fabbaih-day  receive  circumdj'tcn,  that  the  LAW  of 
Moses  should  not  bil  broken  ;  are  ye  angry.  Sec. 
"  The  unlcriptural  blending  of  thefe  two  covenants 
together,  fays  l\Ir.  Worcefier,  has  been  a  moft  prolific 
fource  of  error.  From  this  iburce  fprang  the  error  of 
the  legal  Jews,  in  former  ages  ;  and  from  the  fame 
fource  has  fprung  the  error  of  the  Antipsedobaptilts, 
in  modern  times."  He  further  adds ;  "  It  was  with 
his  eye  upon  this  fource  of  error,  that  our  Lord,  when 
in  difcourfe  with  the  Jews,  he  took  occafion  to  men- 
tion circumcifion,  the  original  flal  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  was  particular  to  remind  them,  that  it  was 
not  OF  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers."  How  Mr. 
Worcefirer  came  by  his  information,  tliat  Chrili  had 
his  "eye  upon  this  fource  of  error,"  we  know  not. 
We  can  lee  nothing  in  the  context  to  juftify  fuch  an 
opinion.  Chriit,  in  vindicating  himielf  for  having  heal- 
ed a  man  upon  the  fabhath-day,  adverts  to  their  con- 
duct in  circumcifing  the  child  which  might  happen  to  be 
eight  davs  old  on  the  fabbath.  This  was  certainly  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  INIofcs,*  and  it  was  certainly  ac- 
cording to  the  law  given  to  the  fathers.f  How  then 
does  it  appear  that  they  were  in  an  error  about  circum- 
cillng  the  child  on  the  fabbath  ?  It  does  not  appear  at 
all.  Their  error  did  not  lie  in  this,  but  in  condemn- 
ing the  Saviour  for  doing  a  deed  which  no  more  mil- 
itated with  the  law  of  the  fJjbsth,  than  circumcifing 
the  child. 

But  if  thefe  covenants  were  fo  diftintl,  how  came 
Mr.  Worcelter  himielf  to  blend  them  ?  He  conflders 
the  Sinai  tranfacHon  a  renewal  of  the  former  covenant. 
His  words  are,  "  At  Mount  Sinai,  the  Lord  appeared 
in  terrible  and  glorious  majerry,  and,  recognizing  the 
ranfomed  tribes  as  the  feed  of  Abraham,  reneivcd  with 
them  his  covenant  ;  and  g".ve  them  a  code  of  fiatutos  and 
ordinances,  called  alfo  a  covenant,  which  were  to  con- 
tinue until  the  Meffiah  fi.ould  come,"  &c.    What  Mv. 


Lev  xli.  3,         f  Ge».  svti.  3«. 
B  b  2 


Worcefter  here  calls  a  renewal  of  the  covenant,  if  he 
refers  to  Exodus  xix=  5 — 8.  we  think  nioft  likely  to  be 
the  covenant  which  the  prophet  Jeremiah  had  in  view, 
which  he  faitl  God  made  iv'Uh  their  fathers  in  the  day 
that  he  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  luhich  my  covenant  thes  brake,  although 
I  was  an  hujband  unto  them,  faith  the  Lord.    The  Jews  j| 
were  very  tenacious  of  the  law  or  ritual  of  Mofes.    They'  Ik 
adhered  to  this  long  after  they  had  loft  the  fpirit  of  1 
obedience-    But  vyhether  it  were  this,  or  the  laiu  of  'A 
sommandments  contained  in  ordinances,  circumcifion  was  <i 
connected  widi  both.    And  if  circumcifion  was  not  con-  1 
tained  in  the  hand  ivriiing  of  ordinances,  v.duch  Chrift  -  ' 
blotted  oat,  and  nailed  t?  his  crofs,  we  think  it  may  be 
difficult  to  prove,  that  i:  has  ever  been  abollllied.  We 
do  not  fuppofe  from  this,  that  any  abfolute  promife 
v/hich  God  ever  made  to  Abraham,  or  any  other  per- 
fon,  has  ever  been  aboliihed.    Conditional  promifes, 
■fuch  as  Mr.  Worcefter  tells  us  thofe  were  which  ref- 
pecled  the  falvation  of  Abraham's  feed,  and  the  feed 
of  other  believers,  can  be  obligatory  upon  the  promifer, 
only  by  the  conditions  being  fulfilled.    And  as  he  has 
ftated  thefe  conditions,  it  does  not  appear  that  either 
Abraham  or  Ifaac,  or  any  of  their  pofterity  ever  fulfilled 
them.    If  they  failed,  we  ferioufly  doubt  whether  any 
other  believer  has  ever  complied  with  them  fully :  at 
leaft,  it  wants  proof. 

In  all  denoniinitions,  fome  men  differ  in  opinion  from 
others,  and  fonie  have  errors  which  it  would  be  ungen- 
erous to  charge  upon  the  whole  :  but  we  think  we  are 
authorized  to  fay,  that  the  Bapiifts  believe,  that  every 
promife  which  God  made  to  Abraham  refpefling  his 
natural  feed  has  been,  or  will  be  fulfilled,  in  cafe  the 
conditions  on  their  part  are  fulfilled  ;  but  that  the 
promifes  feciired  to  Abraham  by  covenant  refi)e6Ung 
the  Mefliah,  and  the  blefiing  of  the  nations  in  him,  re- 
tnain  unaltered.  Thefe  promifes,  which  include  all  Abra- 
ham's fpiritual  feed,  are  abfolute.  They  are  i-n  Chrift 
Jefus and  in  him  they  are  y a  and  amen.  We  conceive, 
that  it  no  more  depended  on  Abraham's  faith  whether 
the  MelBah  fhould  fpring  from  him,  or  whether  the  iia- 


APPENDIX. 


2S7 


tlons  fliould  be  blefled  in  the  promifecl  feed,  that  is,  in 
Chrift,  by  believing  the  gofpel,  than  it  did,  whether 
Chrift  fliould  rife  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day. 

■But  has  not  the  author  before  us  drawn  a  little  from 
this  "  prolific  lource,"  and  blended  two  other  coven;ints 
which  are  manifeftly  dirtinft  ?  We  mean  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion,  and  the  new  covenant  mentioned  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah.*  Speaking  of  the  latter,  he 
fays,  "  This  is  called,  indeed,  a  new  covenant,  and  on 
this  account  has  fometimes,  for  want  of  proper  attentioji 
to  the  fubjeft,  been  fuppofed  to  be  different  from  any 
covenant  before  eftablillied  with  the  church.  It  is 
called  a  new  covenant.,  becaufe  of  its  revival  and  renewal 
after  it  had  been  for  a  long  time  greatly  obfcured,"  &c. 
(page  18.)  But  after  all  his  ingenious  labour  to  prove 
his  point,  he  has  failed  ;  and  in  the  very  next  page,  with 
much  feeming  reluftance,  conceded  to  an  important 
difference.  Speaking  of  the  new  covenant,  he  fays, 
"  In  the  laft  inftance,  indeed,  there  is  an  intimation  of  a 
remwal  of  heart,  in  thole  with  whom  the  covenant  is 
eftabliflied."  "  An  intiniatitn"  Sir  ;  is  this  all  ?  Is 
there  not  a  pofltive,  folemn  engagement  ?  This  is  an 
article,  which  niuft  forever  diftinguilh  this  new  cove- 
nant. An  intimation  of  a  renewal  of  heart  !"  We 
could  not  have  believed,  had  we  not  feen  it  from  his 
own  pen,  that  the  '«  Pallor  of  the  Tabernacle  Church 
in  Salem,"  could  ever  have  fpoken  with  fuch  cold  indif- 
ference of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  renewing 
the  heart. 

That  we  have  properly  "  attended  to  the  fubje£l," 
we  prefume  not  to  fay  ;  but  this  we  are  free  to  declare, 
that  it  appears  to  us,  that  God  himfelf  has  diftinguiflied 
this  covenant  not  only  from  the  one  contrafted  with  it, 
but  from  all  others  which  preceded  it.  Mark  the  lan- 
guage ! — The  days  come,  faith  the  Lordythat  Iivili  mah  a 
HEW  COVENANT;  not  revive  an  old  one.  /  luillput  my  lain 
in  their  iniuard parts,  and  nvritt  it  in  their  hearts.  This 
is  not  the  tenor  of  any  former  covenant.  Is  there  any 
fuch  engagement  in  that  of  which  circumcifion  vras  tha 


•  J«r.  ixii.  jr,  3a, 


28t 


ArrENDix. 


feal  ?  The  fign  of  that  covenant  was  outward,  in  tl-.e 
flefh.  Thoulands  had  this  fign,  which  in  thei'e  dif- 
courfes  is  called  the  fed  of  the  righteoufnfjs  of  faiik^  who 
never,  as  we  have  any  reafon  to  believe,  had  any  true 
faith.  In  this  new  covenant,  oil  hioiv  ike  Lord,  from 
the^leajl  to  the  greatefl.  A  vaft  proportion  of  thofe  who 
were  interefted  in  the  covenant  of  circuincifion,  and 
had  that  feal  put  upon  them,  we  muft  conclude,  if  we 
believe  the  fcriptures,  never  knev/  the  Lord.  To  faj 
the  leait,  this  covenant  is  quite  as  diftinft  from  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  as  that  was  from  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  the  Ifraclites,  when  he  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  Egypt. 

2.  Another  charge,  though  not  the  next  in  order, 
which  Mr.  Worcefter  has  exhibited  againft  the  "  Ana- 
baptifts,"  as  he  very  faftidioufiy  calls  us,  is  fo  clcfely 
conne61ed  with  this,  that  wc  proceed  next  to  confider  it. 

"  They  deny,  faith  he,  God's  everkfting  covenant  of 
fuperabounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inher- 
itance and  privileges  of  his  people,  the  fource  of  blef- 
fings  to  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth."  (page  78.) 

If  there  were  any  law  in  force  to  burn  heretics,  I 
know  not,  my  brethren,  how  we  flioukl  feel  to  have 
fuch  a  charge  as  this  fulminated  aguinft  us  ;  but  as 
things  T\o\y  are,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  we  fliall  be  able 
to  meet  it  with  a  good  degree  of  calmnefs. 

But  on  what  is  this  dreadful  charge  founded  ?  The 
writer  has  not  condefccnded  to  inform  us  ;  he  has  made 
the  affertion,  and  gone  on  his  way.  He  has  left  us  to^ 
gather  his  meaning  from  tlie  general  tenor  of  the  dif- 
courfes  before  us.  From  thefe  we  are  led  to  fuppofe 
he  muft  refer  to  our  not  allowing,  that  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  which  obliged  him  to  circumcife 
all  the  males  born  in  his  houfe  and  bought  with  money, 
obliges  Gentile  believers  to  baptize  their  infants,  both 
male  and  female.  This  we  do  not  believe  :  we  cannot 
believe  it.  But  is  this  full  proof,  that  we  "  deny  God's 
everlafting  covenant  of  fuperabounding  grace  ?"  We 
can  by  no  means  admit  it.  Our  confciences  bear  us  wit- 
nefs,  that  we  do  not  knowingly  deny  any  covenant 
which  God  has  revealed  in  l\is  word  ;  nor  do  we  feel 


APPENDIX. 


2S9 


any  other  conviftion  in  our  minds  from  this  terrible 
charge,  th:in  of  the  miftaken  zeal  of  its  author.  No,  we 
l  ave  ever  acknowledged  "  God's  everlafting  covenant" 
which  contained  the  promifeofthe  IVJefliah,  the  only 
"  fource  of  bleflings  to  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth." 
We  niuft  therefore  view  with  the  deepeft  regret,  a  de^ 
claration  fo  evidently  unfounded  ;  a  declaration  pecul- 
iarly calculated  to  inflame  the  paflions,  and  increafe  the 
unhappy  prejudices  of  thofe  who  differ  from  us. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that  we  deny  what  is  called  the 
«  Abrahamic,"  or  covenant  of  circumcillon.  We  think 
we  acknowledge  it  in  its  full  extent,  as  flated  by  the 
infpired  writers,  as  really  as  our  brethren  do.  It  is  true, 
we  do  not  acknowledge  all  the  inferences  they  draw 
from  it.  But  is  this  denying  the  covenant  itfelf  ?  Might 
we  not  with  as  much  propriety  charge  them  with  a 
*'  denial"  of  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  becaufe  they  do 
not  comply  with  our  views  of  it,  as  for  them  to  charge 
us  with  denying  God's  covenant,  becaufe  we  under- 
ftand  it  dillerently  from  themfelves  ? 

Some  of  our  reafpns  for  difbelieving  that  Gentile 
Chriftians  are  under  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  as 
the  feed  of  Abraham  were,  are  founded  on  the  refuk 
of  the  firft  Chriftian  council,  ftated  in  the  xvth  of  Afts, 
as  may  be  feen  in  what  follows. 

When  certain  men  were  come  from  Judea  to  Anti- 
rfch,  they  taught  the  brethren,  who  Avere  Gentile 
believers,  that  except  they  were  circumcifed  after  the  man- 
ner of  Mcfes,  they  could  not  be  faveJ.  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas withftood  them,  but  could  not  convince  them.  It  was 
finally  concluded  to  fend  a  deputation  to  the  apoftles  and 
I'lders  at  Jerufalem.  And  after  much  confultation  this 
was  the  relult  :  For  it  feemcd  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 


tinn  ;  from  ivhich  if  ye  keep  yourfelves,  yefl:all  do  ivell. 
Fare  ye  tuell. 

By  the  refult  of  this  council,  we  fee  circumcifion 
totally  given  up,  as  it  refpeded  the  Gentiles,  and  n» 


290 


APPENDIX. 


fubftitute  named  in  its  room.  Had  there  been  but 
a  few  P^dobaptifts  in  tliat  council,  it  is  thought  the'y 
would  have  fettled  the  bufinefs  at  once.  How  eafily 
they  might  have  flopped  the  mouths  of  thofe  fticklers 
for  circumcifion  !  It  would  have  been  only  to  have 
ufed  the  modem  argument,  that  baptilin  is  placed  in 
the  room  of  circumcifion.  That  as  they  ufed  to  circum- 
cife  their  children,  (that  is,  the  males)  they  had  need 
only  to  baptize  them.  It  is  perfetTtly  unaccountable 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  while  contending  at  Antioch. 
againft  circumcifion,  Ihould  never  once  think  of  this  ar- 
gument. Paul  was  certainly  a  very  accute  reafoner. 
In  general  we  find  him  to  have  fully  comprehended  his 
fubjeft,  and  alfo  to  have  availed  himfelf  of  the  befl:  to- 
pics of  argument.  He  feems  in  this  infi^ance  to  have 
neglected  the  only  rational  ground  of  defence.  But  is 
it  not  pafling  fiirange,  that  not  one  in  the  council,  which 
was  compofed  of  nearly  all  the  apoftles  and  elders  of 
the  ChriiHan  church,  fiiould  ever  once  have  mentioned 
the  only  argument  which  would  have  fatisfied  or  con- 
founded their  opponents  ?  You  cannot  now  talk  with 
a  Paedobaptift  five  minutes  on  the  fubjeft,  but  he  will 
tell  you,  "  baptifm  came  In  the  room  cf  circumcifion." 
There  never  was  a  cafe  which  more  urgently  called  for 
this  argument,  nor  when  it  might  have  been  ufed  willi 
greater  profped  of  complete  fucccfs.  How  can  we  ac- 
count for  its  omifiion  ?  In  one  way,  we  conceive,  and 
in  one  only  :  it  had  then  probably  no  exifirence. 

Had  this  argument  been  brought  forward  in  that 
council,  it  mufi  have  produced  the  happieft  effefls.  It 
would  have  cut  like  a  two-edged  fword  ;  for  it  would 
not  only  have  ftilled  thofe  Judaizing  Chriftians,  who 
were  clamouring  about  circumcifion,  but  would  alfo 
have  filenced  every  obje(flion  which  any  Antipcedobap- 
tift  could  have  raifcd. 

We  wifh  here  to  aflc  one  quefliion,  and  leave  it  with 
our  Paedobaptlfi:  friends  to  anfwer  ;  and  we  hope  they 
will  anfwer  it  confcientioufly,  in  the  fear  of  God. 
Should  a  number  of  the  defcendams  of  Abraham,  at  the 
prefent  day,  embrace  the  goipel,  and  embody  into  e 
church  fl:ate,  after  which  a  number  of  Gentile  believers 


APPENDIX. 


291 


Ciould  propofe  to  unite  with  them ;  but  in  order  to  this 
union,  they  flioulJ  infilt  upon  their  being  circumc'ifed 
after  the  manner  cf  Mofos  :  £hculd  both  parties  agree  to 
refer  their  didiculties  to  a  council,  to  be  compofed 
wholly  of  Paidobaptifts, — we  wifh  to  aik,  whether  they 
do  not  think  that  their  principal  argument  with  thele 
believing  Jews  would  be,  "  that  circuaiciiion  had  been 
fuperfeded  by  baptifm  r "  Or,  in  other  v/ords,  "  That 
they  v.-ere  now  tobaptize  their  infants,  inftead  of  circum- 
ciling  them  ?"  We  wifli  not  to  anticipate  their  anfwer 
any  farther  than  jurt:  to  fay,  that  fiiould  tliey  not  avail 
themfelves  of  this  argument,  they  would  reafon  very 
differently  with  them,  from  what  they  do  with  us. 
Anfwer  it  as  they  may,  they  muft,  we  think,  either 
differ  from  themfelves,  or  from  the  council  at  Jerufa- 
lem. 

We  beg  the  reader's  indulgence  here,  while  we  di- 
grefs  a  few  moments  from  our  fubjeft,  to  anfwer  an  ob- 
je«5lion  which  has  often  been  brought  by  Pzedobaptills, 
againft  giving  up  circumcifion  without  a  fubuitute. 
They  have  conftantly  ai-gued,  that  the  Jews  were  fo 
tenacious  of  this  privilege  for  their  children,  that  they 
would  never  have  peaceably  religned  it,  without  fome- 
thing  in  its  room  ;  and  yet  it  has  often  been  faid,  that 
there  was  never  any  diipute  about  it.  Mr.  Edwards, 
reafoning  upon  thii  very  point,  has  the  following  re- 
marks :  "  If,"  faith  he,  "  we  take  into  confideration  the 
charafter  of  thofe  perfons,  among  whom  this  cuftom 
had  prevailed,  and  among  whom  it  is  fu  jpofed  to  have 
ceafed,  we  fliall  have  fafncient  reafon  to  thiiik  it  impof- 
fible,  that  a  cuftom  of  this  nature  (hould  be  abrogated, 
and  they  not  oppoje  a fnigle  word."*  Will  not  the  reader 
slk,  Had  Mr.  Edwards  never  read  the  xvth  chapter  of 
Afts  Had  he  never  obferved  that  the  very  firft  dif- 
ficulty in  the  Chriftian  church  which  required  the  in- 
tervention of  a  councU,  was  occafioned  by  a  contention 
raifed  about  circumcifion  by  certain  Jewilh  believers 
We  fee  nothing  in  the  fcriptures  to  juftify  the  opinion, 
that  the  Jews  were  tenacious  of  this  privilege^  any 
otherwife,  than  as  they  confidered  it  an  ordinance  of 


*  C»nd.  Reaf.  p.  6*. 


292 


APPENDIX. 


God,  which  they  were  bound  to  obferve  on  pain  of 
the  dN'ine  difpleafure.  It  appears  to  us,  that  Pacdobap- 
tifts  rate  the  privilege  much  higher  than  ever  the  Jews 
did.  Ftter  certainly  confidered  it  as  a  yoke,  and  a 
grievous  one  too  ;  which  neither  their  fathers  tier 
they  were  able  to  bear. 

It  feems  to  be  generally  concluded  by  Psedobaptifts, 
that  the  only  reafon  why  the  believing  Jews  made  no 
difficulty  about  the  abrogation  of  circumcillon,  was, 
that  infant  baptifm  was  fubftituted  in  its  room.  But 
if  other  Jewifh  believers  viewed  it  as  Peter  did,  as  a 
yoke,  is  it  not  probable,  when  they  were  brought  into 
the  pure  liberty  of  the  gofpcl,  they  would  be  willing  to 
difperfe  u  ith  fuch  a  yoke  of  bondage  ? 

Wc  wiih  the  reader  ferioufly  to  confider  the  two  fol- 
lowing obfervations  : 

1.  That  the  apoftles  had  continually  to  contend 
T/ith  Judaizing  Chriftians,  on  the  fubjeft  of  circum- 
cillon, although  Mr.  Edwards  and  others  will  not  allow 
that  they  «<  oppofed  a  lingle  word." 

2.  That  in  all  the  inftances  in  which  the  apoftles 
had  to  oppofe  the  advocates  for  circumcillon,  they  never 
once  n^ade  ufeof  this  argument,  that  the  baptifm  of  in- 
fants was  fubilituted  in  its  room. 

Both  of  thefe  remarks  will  be  confirmed  by  a  careful 
examination  of  the  following  fcriptures  :  Except  ye  be 
circuniciffd,  and  heep  the  law  of  Mcfs  ye  cannot  be faved* 
Thou  feeji,  brother,  how  mauy  thoufand  of  the  Jews  there  are 
which  believe  ;  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law  :  and 
they  are  informed  of  the:,  that  thou  teachefi  all  the  Jews 
which  are  among  the  Gentiles,  to  for  fake  Mcjes,  faying,  that 
THEY  OUGHT  NOT  TO    CIRCUMCISE  THEIR  CHILDREN. f 

See  alfo  the  apoftle's  exhortation  to  the  Galatians  : 
&tand fafl,  therefore,  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Chrifl  hath 
made  us  free,  and  be  net  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  cf 
bindage.  Behold,  I  Paul  fay  unto  you,  that  IF  YE  BE  cir- 
cumcised, Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.:!:  To 
the  Philij)pians  he  fiiith,  Beware  of  dogs,  beware  of  evil 
•tvorkers,  beware  of  the  concifion,  Ss'c.J     And  to  Titus, 

•  Ad*  XV.  f,  5.         t  Ac^s  xxi.  20, 11.         }  Gal.  v.  i,  a. 

■5  i'hii.  iii.  a. 


APPENDIX. 


293 


Thci-e  are-  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers  and  dereiva'f,  es- 
pecially THET  OF  THE  CIRCUMCISION  ;  tv/:cfe  ^miiihs 
fntffi  he  Jlopped ;  "who  Jubvert  whole  houfes^  teaching  things 
which  they  ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre's  fake* 

Can  any  man  ferioufly  confider  thefe  palTages,  with 
many  others  of  the  lame  import,  and  then  conclude, 
that  the  Jews  made  no  difficulty  about  giving  up  cir- 
cumcifion  ?  that  they  did  not  "  oppofe  a  fingle  word  ?" 
We  fliould  think,  that  we  were  only  beating  the  air  to 
reafon  with  fuch  a  man. 

If  our  reaionings  on  tliis  head  fliould  produce  no 
other  effect,  will  they  not  exonerate  us  from  the  un- 
chriftian  charge,  that  we  "  deny  God's  everlafting  cov- 
enant ?"  Feeling  ourleives  acquit,  we  leave  the  author 
to  anfwer  it  to  his  God,  and  to  his  confcience. 

3.  "  They  deny  (faith  he)  the  church  of  Gofl, 
which  was  formed  in  the  family  of  Abraham,"  &c.f 

How  has  Mr.  Worcefter  proved  this How  !  by 
his  own  aff  rtion,  as  he  has  the  moft  of  his  other 
charges.  We  are  obliged  to  find  out  his  meaning,  if  we 
can,  from  the  general  drift  of  his  difcourfes.  As  this 
charge  immediately  follows  the  one  we  have  juft  been 
coniidering,  it  is  probably  drawn  from  the  fame  prem- 
ifes.  And  in  anfwer  to  it  we  need  only  fiiy,  we  are  not 
confcious  of  denying  any  tiling  refpec'ting  the  "  church 
formed  in  Abraham's  family,"  which  the  fcriptures 
eftabl-lh,  or  which  reafon  requires  us  to  believe.  We 
know  of  nothing  on  which  the  charge  can  be  founded, 
but  what  has  been  obviated  under  the  preceding  article, 
unlefs  it  be  this ;  that  we  do  not  believe  the  gofpel 
church  to  be  a  mere  continuation  of  the  old  JewiOi,  but 
a  fpiritual  houfe  binlt  up  of  lively  ftones.  We  conceive 
the  charge,  thtrefore,  as  unfounded  as  it  would  be  to 
charge  us  with  denying  that  Great  Britain,  with  which 
we  were  once  connected,  wr.s  a  lawful  government,  be- 
caufe  we  are  not  now  under  it,  but  enjoy  different  and 
greater  privileges,  under  a  different  conftitution. 

Without  "  difplaying  any  thing  like  a  fpirit  of  perfe- 
cution,  or  even  of  uncharitablenefs,"  (fee  page  78,) 
Mr.  Worcefter  proceeds  to  fay, 

*  Tit.  i.  10,  II.  t^l>id- 
c  c 


291 


APPENDIX. 


4.  "TJie  grand  provifion,  which,  in  his  infinlt« 
wifdom  and  grace,  Jehovah  has  been  pleafed  to  make 
for  the  prefervation  of  a  righteous  feed  upon  earth,  and 
for  the  maintenance  and  promotion,  from  age  to  age,  of 
his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  this  hoftile  world,  they  not  only 
deny,  BUT  OPENLY  contemn."  Is  it  not  a  profanation 
of  language  to  talk  of  "  charitablenefs"  towards  any  feft 
of  profefling  Chriftians,  and  at  tiie  Aime  time  to  charge 
them  not  only  with  denying,  but  openly  contemning  the 
grand  provifion  which  God  has  gracioufly  made,  for  the 
promotion  of  his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  the  world  ? 
This  charge,  however,  appears  to  us  fo  totally  unfound- 
ed, and  fo  far  from  that  fpirit  of  meeknefs,  which  the 
iove  of  Chrift  infpires,  that  we  fliall  attempt  no  other 
•findication,  but  a  folemn  appeal  to  fafts,  and  to  the 
feehngs  of  our  fellow-men.  Let  thofe,  who  are  befl 
acquainted  with  our  fentimentfi,  with  our  do£trine,  with 
oar  daily  converfiition  nnd  pra£lice,  teftify,  if  they  think 
us  the  open  ciemers  and  ccntcumers  of  the  pi'ovifion  which 
God  has  made  for  the  «'  promotion  of  his  caufe  and 
kingdom  in  the  world  "  Let  the  thouGinds  in  Amer- 
ica, v/hom  God  has  gracioufly  condefcended  to  convert 
by  our  miniftry,  teftify,  if  they  have  ever  feen  any  thing 
in  our  conduiSl  towards  themfelves  or  others,  which 
could  julbfy  fuch  a  charge.  Let  the  converted  Hin- 
doos of  Hindoftan  declare,  if  they  think  the  men  who 
have  left  their  friends,  their  country,  and  almofl:  every 
enjoyment  held  dear  by  civilized  man,  to  publilh  in 
thofe  benighted  regions  the  precious  name  of  a  Saviour  : 
let  thefe  teftify,  if  they  have  feen  any  thing  in  them, 
•which  looks  unfriendly  to  the  promotion  of  the  caufe 
ef  God  in  the  world.  Although  we  have  much  reafon 
to  lament  the  languor  of  our  zeal  in  this  precious  caufe, 
yet  our  confciences  bear  us  witnefs  in  the  fight  of  God, 
that  we  love  and  pray  for  its  profperity  ;  and  whiift 
thus  unjiiftly  charged,  we  think  we  can  rejoice,  that  our 
Judgment  is  with  the  Lord,  and  our  work  with  cur  God.* 

5.  The  auihof  of  the  dilcourfes,  ftill  continuing  his 
0rain  of  accufation,  adds — "  They  deny  and  contemn  the 
grace  which  is  fo  kindly  and  fo  condefceudingly  oflered 


*  Ifa  xlii.  4. 


APPENDIX. 


295 


for  the  fpiritual  renovation  and  everlafting  falvation  of 
the  feed  of  the  church."  (page  79.) 

An  inquifitive  mind,  if  permitted,  would  naturallv 
alk  two  or  three  qiieftions  upon  this  article.  Do  not 
the  fcriptures  confider  the  church  as  the  bride.,  the  Lamb^s 
ni-ife,  and  the  Saviour  himfelf  as  the  Bridegroom  ? 
What  feed  then  has  the  church,  that  are  not  '«  renovat- 
ed r"  Has  the  church,  properly  fpeaking,  any  children 
but  fpiritual  ones  ?  What  grace  is  that  fo  "  kindly  offer- 
ed," which  the  Baptifts  "  deny  and  contemn  ?"  And  to 
whom  is  it  offered  ?  to  parents  for  their  children,  or  to 
children  for  themfelves  ?  We  know  of  no  other  grace, 
nor  can  we  conceive  of  any  which  the  author  can  have 
reference  to,  but  the  grace  of  infant  baptijm.  We  knovir 
of  nothing  which  dilHnguifhes  the  children  of  Psedo- 
baptifts  from  the  children  of  other  believers,  only  their 
baptifm.  It  will  be  admitted,  that  there  are  unworthy 
profcfTors  in  all  denominations,  from  whom  it  wonld  be 
improper  and  difingenuous  to  form  a  judgment  of  the 
whole.  But  it  is  not  perceived,  that  Paedobaptifts  in 
general  difcover  any  more  folicitude  for  the  eternal  fal- 
vation of  their  children,  than  what  is  apparent  in  other 
Chriftians.  Do  they  more  generally  reftrain  them  frr,n 
the  vanities  of  the  world  ?  Or  do  they  pray  more  fre- 
quently, or  more  fervently  for  them  thnn  others  ?  They 
may  indeed  prefent  their  fupplication  upon  a  diflcrent 
footing  from  what  the  Baptifts  do.  They  may  plead 
their  covenant  relation  to  God  ;  that  they  have  Abraham 
to  their  father  :  whereas  others  have  nothing  to  plead 
for  theirs  but  the  merits  of  a  Saviour,  or  what  is  call- 
ed "  the  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God."  An  obfervation 
made  by  Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  may  caft 
fome  light  upon  the  fubjecSl.  What  advantage  then,  faid 
he,  hath  the  je-w  ?  Or  luhat  profit  is  there  of  circumcifton  ? 
Much  every  way  ;  chiefly,  becaufe  that  unto  them  nvere  com- 
mitted  the  oracles  of  God.*  If  to  enjoy  the  oracles  of 
God  was  the  chief  advantage  which  the  circumcifed  Jew 
had  above  others  ;  and  "  baptifm  places  children  in  the 
fame  relation  to  the  church  as  circunicifion  did,"  it  will 
be  difKcult,  we  believe,  to  point  out  any  great  advan- 


•  Rom.  iii  I,  2. 


?96 


APPENDIX. 


tages,  which  the  children  of  Psedobaptills  enjoy,  which 
are  not  equally  enjoyed  by  others.  The  oracles  of  God, 
as  far  as  we  know,  are  as  freely  and  fully  enjoyed  by 
the  children  of  the  Bnptifts,  as  by  any  others.  St. 
Paul,  in  another  of  his  epiftles,  gives  us  his  opinion  of 
the  real  value  of  all  the  pri-vileges  to  be  derived  from 
the  covenant  of  circumcifun.  TUtigh  I  might  alfo,  faith 
he,  have  confidence  in  the  Jlefij.  If  any  other  man  thinketh  hi 
hath  luherccf  he  tnay  trujl  in  the  fiefh,  I  more.  Circim- 
cifed  the  eighth  day,  of  tbefcck  of  Ifrael,  of  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamiUi  an  Hebreiv  of  the  Hebnivs,  ^c.  But  what  things 
tvere  gain  to  me  I  counted  Ifs  for  Chri/i.  Tea  douhilefsy 
and  I  count  all  things  but  l')fs,for  the  exci'llaicy  of  the  knoivl- 
edge  of  Clyrifl  Jefus  my  Lord  for  whom  1 1:  a  ve  firfered  the 
lofs  of  all  things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung  that  I  may 
Kjin  Chrifi.*  We  very  much  doubt,  whether  any  per- 
fons  who  were  ever  truly  humbled  before  God,  under 
a  fenfe  of  their  guilt  and  unworthinefs,  then  felt  as 
if  they  had  any  thing  to  plead  but  pure  mercy.  All 
their  felf-exaltlng  fchemes,  founded  upon  their  fuppofed 
covenant  relation  to  God,  at  once  difappeared,  and  thofe 
things  which  before  they  had  reckoned  upon  as  enti- 
tling them  to  divine  favour,  they  counted  but  dungy  that 
they  might  ivin  Ckrijl. 

The  following,  founds  very  different  to  us,  from  the 
ftyle  of  the  New-Teftament  writers,  viz.  Conditional 
promifes  to  parents,  by  which  their  children  may  or  may 
not  become  "  fubjects  of  grace."  (page  38.)  «  Grace 
fo  kindly  offered  to  us  for  our  children."  (page  77.) 
And  "  gr?xe  offered  for  the  fpiritual  renovation  of  the 
feed  of  the  church."  (page  79.)  This  language  is  about 
as  uuijitelligible  to  a  Baptift,  as  that  was  to  Nehemiah, 
which  was  fpoken  by  the  children  of  thofe  Jews  who 
had  married  wives  of  Aflidod,  &:c.f  We  hence  leave  it 
to  thofe  who  can  better  underlland  it  ;  and  proceed  to 
his  next  charge. 

C.  "  The  great  body  cf  God's  vifible  profefiing  peo- 
ple, even  the  most  eni.ightened,  and  the  most 
FAITHFUL,  for  hundreds  of  years,'  they  utterly  fet  afidc, 


•  Phil,  lii.  4,  J,  7:  S'. 


t  Ntl.tPi;Ui  xiii.  J3,  24. 


APPENDIX. 


297 


affconftitutlng  no  part  of  the  true  church  of  Chrift,  but 
only  a  part  of  Aiitichrift." 

We  very  much  regret,  that  Mr.  Worceider  fliould 
throw  out  fuch  an  unqualified  charge,  without  produ- 
cing a  fcrap  of  proof  to  fupport  it.  Can  we  fuppo'e,  that 
he  ferioufly  beheved  this  to  be  the  fentiment  of  the 
Baptifts  in  general  If  fo,  we  fliall  ftill  regret,  that  he 
has  undertaken  to  reprefent  to  the  world,  or  rather 
to  miireprefent  the  fentiments  of  a  people,  which  he 
knows  fo  little  about. 

Could  any  thing  be  produced  from  the  writings  of 
an  individual,  which  might  feera  to  bear  hard  upon  the 
vifibility  of  the  Paedobaptift  churches,  this  alone  would 
not  prove  it  to  be  the  general  fentiment  of  the  denom- 
ination. Do  not  the  printed  works  of  the  Baptifts, 
from  time  iinmcmorial,  abundantly  Ihow  that  they  hold 
no  fuch  fentiment  ? 

The  writer  of  thefe  fheets  thinks  it  incumbent  on 
himfelf,  in  this  place  to  declare,  that  as  far  as  he  has 
been  able  to  underftand  the  fentiments  of  his  own  de- 
nomination, both  in  Europe  and  America,  they  never 
have  denied  that  Predobaptiils  were  vifible  Chriftians  j 
that  a  number  of  them  united  together,  may  be  con- 
fidered  as  a  vifible  church  ;  and  that  a  minifter  regu- 
larly placed  over  them,  may  be  a  vifible  minifter  of 
Chrift.  Yet  they  confider  them.,  individually  and  unit- 
edly, in  an  error  with  refpect  to  baptifm  :  that  fo  far 
as  their  vifibility  depends  on  baptifm,  fo  far  it  is  defeil- 
ive.  We  think  we  can  f\y,  in  the  fincerity  of  cur 
hearts,  that  we  unfeignedlylove  our  Ppedobapcift  breth- 
ren, who  appear  to  walk  in  the  fpirit  of  the  gofpel ; 
and  are  determined  to  treat  them  as  Giirifl:ians }  Ixit 
as  Chriftians  whom  we  view  in  an  error,  as  expreficd 
above,  notwithftanding  the  hard  things  they  are  faying 
of  us.  If  Mr.  Worcefter  can  make  out,  tliat  our  deny- 
ing the  validity  of  their  baptifm,  is  denying  that  they 
make  any  "  part  of  the  true  church,  but  only  a  part  of 
Antichrift,"  then  his  affertion  may  be  true,  and  not 
otherwife.  The  fuppofition,  however,  is  too  abfurd  to 
be  admitted  ;  for  it  would  bring  us  to  this  conclufion». 
that  baptifm  conftltuted  the  true  church  of  Chrift. : 
c  c  2 


29« 


APPENDIX. 


then  confequently  nothing  more  woulJ  be  necefliu-y 
to  make  men  true  Chriftians,  but  to  be  rightly  baptized. 

fi.  The  author  of  the  difcourfos  has  charged  the 
Anahapnjls*  with  "  placing  fuch  ftrefs  upon  baptifm  in 
their  mode,  as  to  make  it  the  fubject  on  which  to  dif- 
play  their  greatcjl  zeal;  thus  making  people  believe,  in  too 
many  inftances,  that  going  into  the  water  will  anfwer 
all  the  purpofes  of  their  prelent  comfort  and  of  their 
eternal  lalvation."  (Note,  page  73.) 

Can  Mr.  Worcefter  lay  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  and 
folemnly  declare,  that  he  believes  the  above  charge  to 
be  true  ?  If  he  believes  it,  he  believes  it  becaufe  he  has 
evidence  of  its  truth  ;  for  he  is  certainly  a  ratiomJ 
man,  and  no  rational  man  will  believe  without  evidence. 
If  he  has  evidence,  he  certainly  can  exhibit  it  to  the 
public.  And  that  we  may  be  either  proved  guilty,  or 
elfe  honourably  acquitted,  we  call  upon  him  as  a  gentle- 
man, as  a  man  of  honour,  as  a  ChrilHan,  as  a  Chrilf  ian 
minirter,  to  bring  forward  the  proof,  that  we  "  difplay 
our  greateil:  zeal  in  making  people  believe,  that  going 
into  the  water  will  aniwer  all  the  purpofe^of  their  pref- 
ent  comfort  and  of  their  future  falvation," 

If  it  could  be  fairly  proved,  that  any  minifter  who 
bears  the  name  of  a  Baptift,  had  fo  far  departed  from 
our  known  and  avowed  fentiments,  as  to  teach  in  the 
manner  ftated  in  the  charge,  he  would,  on  being  con- 
fi'fled,  be  immediately  rejetSied  from  our  connexion. 
It  is  notorious  to  all  who  have  the  leall  knowledge  of 
our  fentiments,  that  we  baptize  only  upon  a  profejfton  of 
faith.  That  is,  fuch  pcrfons  only  as  in  a  judgment  of 
charity  are  thought  to  be  experimental  Clwiftians. 

*  The  term  Anabaptift,  has  by  coniinoncoiifeiit  been  perrnitteJ  to  re- 
pofe  for  about  half  a  century.  During  this  period,  our  opponents  have 
generally  been  content  to  call  us  Baptifls  :  but  Mr.  Worcclkr  thinks;  it 
1101  fuHiciently  defcriptive  ;  for  he  fays,  "  We  arc  all  Baptifls,"  and  hence 
.-oDi-ludes,  as  we  re-baptize  (as  he  calls  it)  fuch  as  they  have  fprinkled  in 
infancy,  Anabaptift  is  the  moil  proper  term  of  diflinftion.  (Sec  his  note, 
page  66  )  A  gcntlrnian  la  CouneAicut,  who  has  lately  publiflied  a  laige 
iiaiiiphUt  on  thcJiihjeil  of  Iniptifm,  &c  fcem*  not  content  with  an_y 
uames  they  haTe  hitherto  given  us.  He  choofts  to  diftinguiih  ui  by 
th'j  term  Dipping  Baptitts,  and  Dutk-dipping  Baptifls,  and  I  know  not 
bow  many  more  n.irnes.  After  all,  it  will  be  rernembctcd,  that  harii 
i^mM,  and  hard  argutneiit^,  arc  very  differcNt  tliinj^ 


APPENDIX. 


299 


Should  any  defire  to  be  b.iptizeJ  upon  th?  principle 
bid  down  in  the  charge,  it  would  in  our  opinion  prove 
them  totally  unqualified  for  the  ordinance.  The  pub- 
lic have  the  charge  before  them,  but  candour  requires 
tliat  they  lliould  fulpend  their  opinion  until  proof  is 
exhibited  to  fubftantiate  it.  Mere  vague  report,  or  even 
fome  folitary  inftances  of  real  imprudence,  if  i'uch  could 
be  found,  would  not  be  deemed  iufficient  to  fix  a  charge 
generally  upon  the  whole  denomination.  Permit  us  to 
alk,  Do  we  preach  more  frequently  upon  baptifm  in 
our  mode,  than  Psedobaptifts  do  upon  the  fame  fubjeft 
in  theirs  ?  Do  we  write  and  publiili  more  books  in 
defence  of  our  fentiments  than  they  do  of  theirs  ?  Facts 
fpeak  fo  plainly  to  the  contrary,  that  we  think  no  one 
will  aflert  it.  Do  we  "  place  I'uch  a  ftrefs  upon  bap- 
tifm in  our  mode,"  as  to  adminifter  the  ordinance  to 
any  who  cannot  give  a  fatisfaftory  and  I'criptural  reafon 
of  their  hope  ?  We  certainly  do  not.  The  minirtcrs 
of  our  denomination,  perhaps  nil  of  them,  have  frequent 
applications  for  baptilm  by  perfons  who  are  otherwifo 
decent,  but  not  being  able  to  give  evidence  of  a  change 
of  heart,  they  are  denied.  How  then  does  it  appear 
that  we  are  guilty  of  "  making  people  b>ilieve,  in  too 
many  inftances,  that  going  into  the  water  wWl  anfwer 
all  the  purpofes  of  their  prefent  comfort  and  eternal 
falvation  ?"  It  does  not  appear  at  all,  at  leaft  from  any 
thing  known  to  us.  On  the  whole,  the  charge  before 
us  has  an  afpect  fo  perfectly  refembling  what  the  fcrip- 
tnres  call  JJander,  that  if  it  liad  come  from  almoft  any 
other  quarter  befides  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Worcefter,  we 
iliould  have  been  liable  to  have  miftaken  it  for  that 
deteftable  vice. 

7.  The  next  thing  which  we  (hall  notice,  is  a  charge 
againft  us  of  "  delufion  and  fuperftition,"  on  the  ac- 
count of  our  pretending  tofolkiu  Chrill  into  the  water. 
(See  note,  page  71.) 

This  charge  is  indeed  in  the  form  of  a  qiieftion  ;  but 
it  is  evidently  intended  to  aflert  what  it  feems  to  in- 
quire after.  It  is  ftated  thus :  "  Does  not  tlie  idea, 
then,  of  following  Chrift  into  the  water,  which  has 
.  unhappily  fo  powerful  an  effe«5t  upon  many  minds,  par- 
take very  much  of  the  nature  of  dduficn  and  fuperjlit  'mi 


APPENDIX. 


That  the  reader  may  better  underhand  Mr-  Worcci- 
ter's  argument,  we  obferve,  that  the  objeft  of  the  note 
from  which  the  nbove  is  extratTred,  is  to  explain  away 
the  evidence  arifing  in  favour  of  immerllon,  from  John's 
baptifm  ;  or  to  prove  that  John's  baptifm  was  not  Chrif- 
tian  baptifm  ;  therefore,  as  Chrifi:  was  baptized  by  him, 
it  was  "  no  example  for  Chriftians." 

"  Chrift's  baptifm,"  faith  he,  "  was  defigned  regularly 
to  introduce  him  into  his  prieflly  office,  according  to 
the  law  of  Mofes,  under  which  he  commenced  his  min- 
iftry,  and  which  it  behoved  him  to  fulfil."  This  fame 
fentiment  was  made  the  theme  of  a  fmall  pamphlet, 
publifhed  fome  years  ago  by  MeiTrs.  Fifh  and  Crane, 
entitled,  "The  baptifm  of  Jefus  Chrift  not  to  be  imi- 
tated by  Chriftians."  We  have  noticed  obfervations 
to  the  fame  import  in  the  writings  of  feveral  other 
P?edobaptifts. 

The  author  before  us  continues  his  apgumcnt  thus  : 
"  There  is  no  evid-'iice  that  Chrift  was  buried  in  the 
water ;  and  even  if  he  were,  his  baptifm  was  of  an  im- 
port very  different  from  that  of  the  baptifm  which  he 
afterwards  infticuted  for  his  followers.  Are  we  to  go 
into  the  water,  under  the  idea  of  following  Chrift — into 
his  prieftly  office  ?  Ought  we  to  cull  this  deliifim  and 
fupcrjiiiion,  or  ought  we  to  call  it  the  height  of  impiety?" 

The  reader  will  here  obferve,  that  this  argument 
denies  that  Chrift's  baptifm  would  be  an  example  for 
believers,  if  it  could  be  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  he 
were  immerfed  by  John,  in  Jordan.  The  reafon  lulign- 
ed,  is,  "his  baptifm  v/as  of  a  difterent  import  from  that 
which  he  iaftituted  for  his  followers."  So  it  feems  then, 
he  did  not  intend  his  flla-ivc-rs  fliould  follow  him.  Was 
not  every  other  a6l  of  Chrift's  life,  after  he  entered  on 
his  public  work,  as  really  of  a  "  different  import "  from, 
the  work  alligned  us,  as  his  baptifm  ?  If  fo,  in  what 
then  are  we  to  follow  him  ? 

Our  Prcdobaptift  brethren  argue  their  mode  of  fprink- 
ling  from  the  fpi  inklings  under  the  law.  Thefe,  no 
doubt,  were  prccifely  of  the  fame  import  of  infant  bap- 
tifm :  no  difficulty  in  tracing  a  complete  refemblance 
here,  though  the  fprinkling  were  only  of  blood  and 
aDics  !    But  if  we  talk  of  following  Chrift  into  the 


APPENDIX.  30  r 

water,  fo  as  to  have  our  baptifm  refemble  his,  we  are 
chargeable  with  the  "  height  of  impiety  !" 

We  will  now  confidcr  the  arguments  by  wliich  this 
charge  is  fupportcd.  It  is  faid  that  "  Chrifl's  baptifm 
was  defigned  regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his  prieitly 
office,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes."  Hence  this 
conclufion  is  drawn,  that  for  any  to  pretend  to  imitate 
him  in  his  baptifm^  muft  be  a  facriicgious  intrufion  upon 
his  prieftly  office. 

But  the  fentiment  ftatcvl  above  labours  under  feveral 
important  diilicultles :  a  few  of  them  will  be  briefly 
noticed. 

1  By  the. law  of  Mofes,  no  Jlravger  who  was  not  of 
the  feed  of  Aaron,  might  come  near  to  o3er  incenfe  on 
pain  of  death.*  Every  thing  which  pertained  to  the 
i'ervice  of  the  tabernacle  was  committed  to  the  Eevites, 
and  the  Jlranger  that  fliould  dare  to  come  nigh  was  to 
be  put  to  death.\  By  the  flranger  here,  we  are  not  to 
underftand  the  Gentiles,  but  any  of  the  other  tribes. 
As  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  felecled  for  all  the  outward 
fervice  of  the  tabernacle,  fo  the  priefthood  was  exclu- 
fively  given  to  the  houfe  of  Aaron.  How  then,  we 
alk,  could  Jefus  Chrift  be  baptized,  to  introduce  him 
«  regularly  into  his  prieftly  office,  according  to  the  law 
of  Mofes,"  when  by  that  very  law  he  could  not  be  a 
pritft? 

2.  If  Jefus  had  been  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  of  the 
family  of  Aaron,  his  baptifm  by  John  in  Jordan  could 
not  have  "regularly  introduced  him  into  his  prieftly 
office,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes ;"  for  it  did  not 
correfpond  at  all  with  that  law,  refpefting  a  regular  in- 
du£lion  into  the  prieft's  office.  The  form  of  induftion, 
as  prefcribed  by  Mofes,  is  as  follows  : — And  this  is  the 
thing  that  thou  Jhalt  dj  unto  theui,  to  hallciv  them,  to  min^ 
ijler  unto  me  in  the  priijls"  office.  Take  one  young  builcck, 
and  tnvo  rams  luilhout  bleinijh  ;  and  unleaiwned  bread,  &c. 
And  Aaron  and  his  fans  thiu  Jljait  bring  unto  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  Jljuli  ivaj}}  them  •u  hh 
ivaicr,  &c.  After  this  they  were  to  be  adorned  with 
holy  garments,  the  bullock  and  the  rams  to  be  facri- 


*  Kumb.  ivi.  40.  +  i.  ;i. 


502 


APPENDIX. 


ficed,  and  Aaron  and  his  fons  fprlukled  with  the  blood- 
This  account  may  be  feen  at  large  in  the  twenty-ninth 
chapter  of  Exodus,  which  the  reader  is  defired  to  com- 
pare with  the  baptifm  of  Jefus  by  John  in  Jordan  ;  and 
then  let  him  afk  himfelf,  whether  he  can  poflibly  believe 
that  the  latter  was  intended  "  regularly  to  introduce 
him  into  his  prieftly  office,  according  to  the  law  of 
Mofes."  Had  John  attempted  to  have  waflied  Jefus  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  with  a  -view  to  induft  him 
into  the  priefl's  office,  it  is  probable  the  whole  nation 
would  have  rifen  up  againft  them  :  for  they  were  fo 
zealous  of  the  law  of  Mofes,  that  Mr.  Edwards  tells  us, 
"  they  would  wrangle  for  a  rite,  quarrel  for  a  faft,  and 
almoft  fight  for  a  new-moon." 

3.  Another  infuperable  difficulty,  which  attends  Mr. 
Worcefter's  'explanation  of  the  baptifm  of  Chrift,  is,  he 
lucls  fwt  made  a  priejl  after  the  laiu  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment, Init  after  the  power  of  an  endlefs  I  fe*  He  not  only 
pertained  to  another  tribe,  of  luhich  no  man  gave  attendance 
at  the  altar,  but  was  a  prieft  of  an  order  every  way  dif- 
tinft  from  the  order  of  Aaron,  or  any  thing  prefcribed 
by  the  law  of  Mofes.  By  the  oath  of  God,  Chrift  was 
made  a  prieft  after  the  order  of  AJelchizedec.f  Let  it  be 
fairly  proved,  that  Melchizedec's  order  of  pricfthood 
required  that  Jefus  fliould  be  baptized  in  Jordan,  and 
we  will  acknowledge  the  argument  to  be  in  point.  But 
even  to  admit  this,  would  eftablith  another  interefling 
idea,  i.  e.  that  Melchizedec  was  alfo  a  Baptift  ! 

From  the  preceding  remarks  it  appears  that  Mr. 
Worcefrer's  affertion,  that  "  the  baptiim  of  Chrift  was. 
regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his  prieftly  office,"  is 
not  only  without  foundation,  but  we  conceive  utterly 
inc-ipable  of  proof.  If  the  law  of  Mofes  limited  the 
priefthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  j  then  Jefus,  who  was 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  could  not  by  that  law  be  regular- 
ly introduced  into  the  prieft's  office.  And  if  by  divine 
appointment  the  perfons  legally  qualified  to  be  inducH:- 
ed  into  the  prieft's  office,  were  to  be  iixj/hed  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle — doihed  ivith  holy  garments — and 
fprinkled  -with  blood,  then  the  baptifm  of  Jefus  in  Jordan^ 


•  Heb  vii.  1 6,  f  PLlw  ex.  4, 


APPEKDIX. 


\ 

308 


«s  it  diflered  from  every  thing  prcfcribed  by  the  law  of 
Mofes,  cannot  be  conlldered  as  anfwcring  any  require- 
ment of  that  law.  And  if  Chrift  were  a  prieft  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedec,  then  the  law  of  Mofos  re- 
fpefting  the  Aaronic  priefthood,  had  liothing  to  do 
with  his  induction  into  his  prieftly  office.* 

Is  it  not  aftoni^^.ing  that  men  who  have  the  Bible  in 
their  hands,  can  rcafon  at  fuch  a  rate  j  and,  with  "  an 
ailurancc  peculiar  to  themfelves,"  affcrt,  that  "  the  bap- 
tifm  of  Clirill:  is  not  to  be  imitated  by  Chriftians  but 
was  *'  intended  to  introduce  him  Into  his  prieftly  of- 
fice therefore  to  pretend  to  follow  him  into  the  water, 
mult  be  '*  delufion  and  fuperftition,"  if  not  the  very 
"heij;ht  of  impiety  ?" 

What  effect  Mr.  Worcefier's  alarming  charge  of 
"  delufion  and  fuperftition,"  may  have  on  futh  of  his 
brethren  as  are  diflatisfied  with  their  infant  baptifm, 
and  who  have  almoft  determined  to  follow  Chrift  in  his 
holy  ordinances,  we  know  not.  It  is  poflibie  that  it 
may  deter  them  from  their  duty  a  little  longer,  but  we 
Ihink  in  the  end,  they  muft  fee,  that  all  his  "  exhibi- 
tion of  fcripture  argument,"'  amounts  to  nothing  mor€ 
than  a  bold  afiertion.  If  there  be  any  law  of  Moles,  that 
required  Jekis  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan,  we  lhall  thank 
Mr.  Worcefter  to  point  it  out  to  us  ;  for  we  cannot 
find  it  in  our  Bibles.    If  no  fuch  bw  ever  exifted,  we 

•  Gffcat  ES  Abrah.-im  the  patriarch  and  Lther  of  the  Jcwiiti  cllunh 
Vvn,  t!ie  J^ricfthood  of  Chri.l  is  reckoned  after  the  order  of  one  who 
Was  fuid  to  Kc  greatir  than  liim.  (Hel).  vii.  7.)  As  Melchizedec 
brouf^ht  forth  breaJ  ond  ivint  to  -Abraham  when  he  was  returning  frorti 
the  flaiightcr  of  the  kings  and  blciTcd  him  ;  fo  Chrill  inftituted  bread 
anil  ■u.ine  at  the  fynibols  bjr  which  hi*  deatk  fhouW  Lc  commemorated 
to  the  end  of  time.  'I  his,  and  hi«  otferinK  of  hiniicif  upon  the  tree  of 
the  crofs,  were  afts  whiih  partituiuily  uiftiiiguiflied  the  prieftly  office 
of  Chrifl.  We  have  no  account  of  his  ever  officiating  as  a  pricft  in  the 
tciuple.  He  prcfcnted  htithcr  blood  nor  incenfc,  befides  his  own. 
Fur  if  be  ■uere  on  ear.'i,  faid  the  apoftle,  6e  Jbnild  not  he  a  f:>ejl,  feeing 
that  there  are  priejlt  tint  i,pr  gift:  acitrdiii^  to  the  U'm.\  1  hciefore 
Chriil,  as  the  great  Apoftlc  and  High  Fricft  of  our  profeffion,  wheh 
he  hid  made  this  i)!:e  oiTcring  for  fin,  did  not  enter  into  the  holy  place 
hiade  with  handa,  but  into  heaven  icfilf,  b)r  his  own  blood,  and  nulir 
appe;ri  iu  the  prefeacc  of  God  for  us. 


f  Hell.  »iii  4. 


304. 


APPENDIX. 


muft  conclude  the  bapufm  of  Chi-ilt  had  fomc  othei 
meaning. 

Tlie  reader  will  compare  the  obfervatlons  we  have 
made,  with  thofe  parts  of  the  facred  fcriptnres  to  which 
they  refer  ;  particularly  to  Paul's  account  of  the  prieft- 
hood  of  Jefus  Chrill:,  in  his  epillle  to  the  Hebrews.  If 
this  examination  be  made  by  an  honeft  mind,  aided  by  the 
enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  we  have 
no  doubt  but  all  his  fears  of  its  being  mere  "  delufion 
and  fuperfrition,"  to  follovv  the  blelled  Saviour  in  his 
baptifmal  example,  will  inltantly  vaniih  away.  He  will 
with  grateful  and  adoring  views  of  the  condefcenfion  of 
the  Son  of  God,  moft  cheerfully  follow  him  into  his 
watery  grave,  and  be  buried  ivith  kirn  in  baptifniy  in  the 
full  and  firm  hope  of  riling  to  ivalk  with  him  in  newnifs 
cflife. 

If  the  author  before  us  intended  to  fix  his  charge 
of  delufion^  fi.perjlitioiiy  and  impiety  only  on  fuch  as 
tncati  by  following  Chrift  into  the  water,  to  "  follow 
him  in  his  prieitly  ofRce,"  it  will  implicate  none  of  the 
Baptills  :  for  we  prefume  none  of  them  ever  believed 
him  to  be  baptized  for  that  purpofe.  None  but  Pjedo- 
baptirts,  who  cautioufly  ihun  the  awful  delufion  of  "  imi- 
tating Chrift  in  his  baptifm,"  beheve  any  fuch  thing. 
There  muft  be  a  greater  difplay  of  "  fcripture  argument" 
than  we  have  ever  yet  feen,  to  convince  us  thnt  Chrift 
was  immeried  by  John  to  fulfil  the  law  of  Mofes. 

It  is  plain  to  be  feen,  how  much  Mr.  Worcefter  re- 
grets, that  the  idea  of  "  following  Chrift  into  the  wa- 
ter, which  he  fays  has  unhappily  fo  powerful  an  effect 
upon  many  minds,"  ftjould  after  all  be  left  in  the  hands 
of  the  Baptifts,  to  be  ufed  as  a  "  fort  of  popular  charm," 
to  get  people  into  the  water.  That  it  has  a  very  "  pow- 
erful effect"  upon  a  heaven-born  foul,  we  have  no 
doubt ;  but  v/e  never  before  heard  that  it  was  an  "  un- 
happy "  effcit.  If  thofe  who  have  felt  its  influence  are 
the  proper  judges,  the  evidence  will  certainly  be  turned 
againfl  him.  On  the  whole,  we  fee  nothing  which  bids 
fairer  to  come  under  the  denomination  of  "  delufion," 
than  to  be  left  to  believe,  that  Chrift  did  not  intend  his 
liiptifin  JI:ould  be  imitated  by  his  fdhivers-  The  Jews 
boalted  that  they  were  not  C'hrift's,  but  Mofes's  difciples ; 


APPENDIX. 


335 


and  fotne  Pa^dobaptlfts  feeni  to  exult  that  they  are  not 
fo  deluded  as  to  follow  him  into  the  water,  to  imitate 
his  baptifmal  examjile.  We  envy  not  their  happinefs, 
but  we  freely  conftf^,  we  afpire  after  the  felicity  of 
thofe  of  whom  it  will  one  day  be  faid,  Thcfe  are  they 
•which  FOLLOW  THE  Lamb  ivhitherfoevcr  he  goeth.* 

There  are  many  other  things  in  the  difcourfes  which 
have  been  the  fubjeiSt  of  thefe  animadverlions,  which 
we  confider  as  highly  reprehenfible,  but  cur  limits  for- 
bid that  we  fliould  enlarge.  A  few  things,  which  re- 
fpeft  the  mode  of  baptifm,  will  probably  be  noticed 
in  our  next  fection.  Mr.  Edwards  propofed  a  fliort 
method  with  the  Baptifts,  but  Mr.  Worceiter  has  taken 
a  ftill  fliorter ;  for  while  the  former  attempted  to  run 
down  one  or  two  of  their  main  arguments,  the  latter 
has  only  to  declare  that  they  do  not  "  touch  the  point," 
and  the  bufinefs  is  done.  His  words  are,  "  The  argu- 
ments moft  in  ufe  among  the  Antipxdobaptifts,  and  of 
the  greateft  efficacy,  as  a  fort  of  popular  charm,  do  not 
touch  the  points  of  real  difference  between  us  and 
them."  (Note,  page  58.)  If  the  "  real  points  of  differ- 
ence have  not  been  touched,"  in  the  preceding  Iheets, 
we  fliall  only  have  to  regret  our  inability  to  difcern 
them.  Our  objeft  has  been  to  "  touch  "  them  fo  as  to 
be  felt,  yet  in  a  rcfpcctful  candid  manner  ;  whether  we 
have  failed  in  the  attempt  an  impartial  public  will  judge. 
Confcious  of  having  direcfted  our  arguments  to  the  "  real 
points  of  difference,"  it  would  give  us  little  pain  ihould 
any  gentleman  modejlly  declare  them  nothing  more  than 
"  a  popular  charm."  We  pray  God  to  fucceed  them, 
for  the  removal  of  real  djffiretices  between  good  men. 


SECTION  VII. 

St  r  inures  on  the  Obfer  vat  ions  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Worcej^er^ 
Dr.  Of  good,  and  ethers,  upon  the  MODE  of  Baptifm. 

It  is  extremely  difficult  to  write  or  fpeak  fo 
as  not  to  be  cenfured  by  thofe  who  are  difpofcd  to  cavil. 
"  If  your  fentiments  are  confiftent,"  fay  our  opponents, 
•  Rev.  xiv.  4. 


SOfi 


APPENDIX. 


"  why  do  you  talk  about  tJie  motle  of  baptifm  ?  Immer- 
fiou  and  baptiGn  muft  be  fynonymous  terms  with  you." 
They  are  indeed  fo  with  us,  and  when  we  talk  or  write 
to  thole  of  our  own  denomination,  we  ufe  them  in  this 
fcnfe.  But,  fays  another,  «  the  difpute  is  not  about 
baptifm  itfelf,  but  only  about  a  tnrre  mode  of  baptifm." 
Very  well ;  let  it  be  mode,  if  we  can  only  underlland 
one  another.  We  fliall  therefore  ufe  the  term  mocky 
not  meaning  by  it  to  concede  that  there  are  different 
modes  equally  valid,  but  as  being  beft  adapted  lo  explain 
the  different  views  of  the  two  denominations.  "  The 
queftion,"  faith  Mr.  Worcefter,  "  properly  between  us, 
is  not  this,  Whether  any  were  baptized  in  the  days  of 
Chrift  and  his  apoftlesby  immerfion  or  dipping  ;  but  it 
is  precifely  this.  Whether  immerfion  or  dipping  be  the 
only  valid  mode  of  baptifm."  (Note,  page  73.) 

If  Mr.  Worcelter  himfelf  can  "  touch  trie  points  of 
real  difference  between  us  and  them,"  and  this  is  an 
accurate  Uatement  of  one  of  them,  it  will  narrow  the 
o-roimd  of  controverfy  confideiably.  By  this  ftatement 
it  will  be  fcen,  that  if  it  be  not  a  queftion  betvv^een  us 
and  them,  *'  whether  fome  were  baptized  in  the  days 
of  Chrift:  and  h:s  apoftles  by  immerfion,"  then  it  muft 
be  a  conceded  point  that  there  were  fome  immerfed  at 
that  period.  And  if  it  be  not  a  queflion,  whether  im- 
merfion or  dipping  be  a  valid  mode  of  baptifm,  but 
whether  it  be  the  "  otily  valid  uT^de,"  then  immerfion 
is  unqueftionably  a  valid  mode.  The  "  point  of  differ- 
ence" is  here  fo  nicely  '<  touched,"  as  to  leave  our 
^  r.  ctlce  on  the  firm  bafis  of  apoftolic  authority.  Let 
ai 'l.ov  before  us  prove  fprinkling  to  be  equally 
v.i.lid  and  there  will  be  no  queftion  about  that :  it  will 
then  be  acknowledged  by  us  as  well  as  them,  that  both 
are  valid. 

That  immerfion  is  an  apoflolic  valid  mode,  is  as  capa- 
ble of  proof  as  any  other  e>ent  placed  at  that  dift:ance. 
But  it  may  be  alked,  How  is  it  to  be  proved  We 
anfwer,  1ft,  from  a  fair  and  candid  conftruc^ion  of 
fcriptarc  teftimony  refpefting  the  ordinance  ;  'id,  from 
the  moft  authentic  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,  and  3d,  we 
alio  prove  it  from  the  fall  and  fair  conceffions  of  many 


APPENDIX. 


of"  the  molt  learned  and  pious  Pcedobripiifts  tlicm- 
ielves.* 

Afier  furnifliing  all  this  kind  of  proof,  in  the  mod 
ample  and  plenary  manner,  our  opponents  infift  that 
we  muft  alfo  difpi  ive  their  mode.  We  can  il-e  no  pro- 
priety in  luch  a  demand,  nor  H  all  we  undertake  it,  iiny 
further  than  the  proving  our  own  will  difprove  theirs. 
If  they  praclife  fprinkling  for  baptifm,  tliey  certainly 
ought  to  exhibit  proof  of  its  validity. 

Mr.  Worcefter  charges  the  author  of  the  Seven  S.^r- 
mons  on  the  fubjefls  and  mode  of  baptiim,  that  "  h.e 
ajjlrts  much  and  prcves  little."  We  think  that  fome  cf 
his  own  afiertions  would  have  c  .rried  quite  as  rnucli 
conviiftion,  if  they  had  been  fupported  by  a  litlle  more 
proof.  His  fifth  inference  labours  for  the  want  of  proof. 
It  is  ft.ued  as  follows  :  "It  mry  be  inferred  from  our 
fubjetl,  that  fprinkling  or  aftufion  is  a  valid  mid  fcr  'ih- 
tural  mode  of  bnptifm."  (page  6+.)  But  from  whai  is 
this  inference  drawn  ?  Not  from  r.ny  diret^t  fciipture 
teftimony,  for  the  fcriptures  are  wholly  "  iiient."f  Not 
from  any  authentic  hiftorv,  "  becaufe  there  is  nothing 
direftly  on  the  fubjeft,  either  for  or  againft  infant  bnp- 
tifm, in  the  fragments  which  have  come  down  to  us  of 
the  writings  of  the  firft  century  ."J  It  rauft  therefore 
reft  on  the  following  clrcumilances  :  That  a  church  v.-as 
conftituted  in  the  fam.ily  of  Abraham  ;  that  circumcifion 
was  a  Teal  or  token  of  membcrftiip  in  that  cliurch  ; 
thvt  the  fame  church  has  been  continued  under  the 
gofpel  difpenfation,  and  for  ages  has  been  excluiively 
among  the  Predobaptifls  ;  that  God  h.iS  owned  them  as 
his  church  ;  and  they  have  nlways  praclifed  fprinkling 
or  atluiion  ;  therefore,  "  fprinkling  or  affuiion  is  a  valid 
and  fcripiural  mode  of  baptiim  "  If  the  inference  has 
any  thing  better  than  the  above  to  fupport  it,  we  very 
much  millake.  As  a  fpecimen  of  INIr.  Worc.ftcr's  rsa- 
fonirg  in  lupport  of  the  inference,  the  reader  will  take 
the  following  :  "  But  if  there  have  been,  in  every  peri- 
od, a  true  chisrch  in  the  world  ;  then  there  have  been, 
in  every  period,  cflentially  correal  views  of  the  facra- 

•  Sec  Part  II.  Sed.  iv.  and  v. 


■f  Mr.  P.  Edvarcs,  \  Mr.  Worccilcr,  note,  p::gc  60, 


APPENDIX. 


inents  and  feals  of  the  church.  In  particular,  fince  the 
alteration  of  the  firft  feal,  there  muft  have  been  eflen- 
tinlly  corrcdi:  views  of  baptifm  :  for  it  were  no  lefs 
abfurd  in  itfelf,  than  incompatible  with  the  purpofes 
and  promifes  of  God,  to  fuppofe  that  at  any  period  a 
true  church  has  exifted  without  eflcntially  correit  views 
of  the  firft  facrament  and  feal." 

"  It  is,  liowever,  (continues  the  author)  a  well  fup- 
ported  fjft,  that  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  and 
for  ab.  ut  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  baptifm  by 
fprinkling  or  afFufion  was  univerfally  allov\'ed  to  be 
fcripturai  and  valid.  Even  thofe  who  in  ordinary  cafes 
bdpiizid  by  immaf,ony  did  not  deny,  but  admitted,  the 
validity  of  baptifm  by  fprinkling  or  affufion."  (page 
6i,  65.) 

The  reader  will  here  notice  another  full  and  fair 
concefiion — that  the  manner  of  baptizing  was  in  ordi- 
finry  cafes  by  IMMERSION.  This  is  an  undoubted  fa£l : 
but  that  fprinkling,  during  the  apoftolic  age,  and  for 
two  centuries  after,  was  allowed  to  be  friptiiral^  or, 
properly  fpeaking,  valid,  we  lhall  not  believe  without 
proof.  Eufebius,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
gives  us  the  following  account  of  Novatus  :  "  He  fell 
into  a  grievous  difiemper,  and  it  being  fuppofed  that 
lie  would  die  immediately,  he  received  baptifm  (being 
bfjpriiikled  with  water)  on  the  bed  whereon  he  lay,  if 
that  can  be  called  baptifm."*  If  fprinkling  were  con- 
fidered  equally  valid  as  immerfion,  why  fhould  this 
ancient  father  make  the  above  exception  If  equally 
valid,  why  ihould  the  Nc-cafirian  Louiicil  declare  fuch 
perfons  incr.pable  of  being  admitted  to  the  degree  of 
prcfbyters  in  the  church  1  f  We  have  never  yet  feen 
any  fair  proof  that  fprinkling  was  in  any  inftance  ad- 
mitted in  the  apofiiolic  age.  But  after  infpiration  had 
ccafed,  and  men  began  to  mix  their  own  inventions 
Avith  the  pure  doctrine  of  Chrift,  and  had  concluded 
thai  baptifm  was  tflential  to  falvation,  cafes  frequently 
occurred  which  they  called  cafes  of  neaffiiy  ;  that  is, 
where  perfons  were  fick  and  in  danger  of  dying.  Thcle 
were,  we  acknowledge,  in  feme  inflances  fprinkltd  : 


*  S««  Pan  II.  page  95. 


t  Dr.  Csre,  page  1  96. 


APPENDIX. 


30*» 


but  this  fprinkling  was  almoft  as  different  from  that 
\vhich  is  now  in  uTe  as  immerfion  itldf.  It  was  not  a 
tew  drops  of  water  put  on  the  face  only,  but  the  per- 
lons  were  fprinkled  from  head  to  foot.*  It  was  an 
entire  wetting,  hke  what  is  faid  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  was  wet  with  the  tlew  of  heaven.  This  wetting 
!  of  the  perfon  all  over  by  fprinkling,  though  it  were  not 
an  immerlion,  it  approximated  to  it  ;  and  even  this  was 
admitted  only  in  cafes  of  imperious  neceflity.  Dr.  Cave 
thus  remarks  upon  it  :  "  This  was  accounted  a  hfs 
foUmn  and  perfect  kind  of  baptilm,  partly  becaufe  it  was 
done  /;;/  by  immt-rfion,  but  by  fpriiikiing  ;  partly  becaufe 
perfons  were  fuppofed  at  fuch  a  time  to  defire  it,  chiefly 
out  of  fear  of  death."f  The  Doftor  further  adds,  "  The 
place  where  this  folemn  a^lion  was  performed,  was  at 
jfirll  unlimited.  Any  place  where  there  was  water,  as 
Jufcin  Martyr  tell  us,  in  ponds  and  lakes  ;  at  fprings  or 
rivers,  as  Tertullian  fpeaks  Afterwards  they  had  their 
[l>apti/hrta)  fonts  built,  at  firft  near  the  church,  then  in 
the  church-porch,  to  reprcfent  baptifm  as  being  the 
entrance  into  the  myftical  church."|  Thefe,  he  in- 
forms us,  were  ufually  very  large-  and  capacious,  lb 
*'  that  they  might  comport  with  the  general  cuftoms  of 
tbofe  times,  of  perfons  baptized  being  immerfed  or  put 
under  water." 

Two  things  are  clearly  demonflrated  by  the  above 
quotations.  Firfi:,  That  imrrurfton,  during  the  firlt 
centuries,  was  conGdered  as  the  only  fcriptural  bap- 
tifm. becoiid,  That  fprinkling  was  admitted  only  in 
cafes  of  fuppofed  neceflity,  and  then  contidered  as  a 
kind  of  imperfecl  baptifm.  This  proves  that  it  w^is  a 
mere  human  invention,  a  departure  from  the  inltituted 
niode  ;  for  if  it  had  been  fandjoned  by  apoflolic  au- 
thority, it  muft  have  been  conlidered  equally  valid  as 
immerlion.  In  fact,  there  can  be  no  fair  realbn  affigned 
why  they  fhould  immerfe  hi  ordinary  cales,  or  even  at 
all,  had  they  viewed  fprinkling  equally  valid. 

"  It  is,  however,  a  well  fupported  faft,"  faith  JNIr. 
■Worcefter,  "  that  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  and 

•  See  Dr.  WitCus  on  the  Covenants,  Vol.  III. 
f  Pritn.  ChriftUnity,  fage  196.        '  ^  Ibid,  page  I  j8,  199. 
C  d  2 


31G 


APPENDIX. 


for  about  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  baptifm  by 
fprinkling  or  affufion  was  univerfally  allowed  to  be 
fcriptural  and  valid."  By  whom  is  this  "  fafl:  fupport- 
ed  ?"  Certainly  not  by  Eufebius  and  Socrates  ;*  not  by 
Cave,t  WallJ  Monieim,§  nor  Roblnfon.H  Thefe  all 
fupport  exaftly  the  contrary;  that  immerrion  was  the 
divinely  appointed  mode,  and  that  fprinkling,  for  the 
■  iake  of  conveniency  or  necefjity,  without  divine  author- 
ity, was  adopted  in  its  room.  In  proof  of  this,  we  add 
the  following:  "There  has,"  fays  Dr.  Wall,  "no  nov- 
elty or  alteration,  that  I  know  of,  in  point  of  baptifm, 
been  brought  into  our  church,  but  in  the  way  or  manner 
of  adminirtering  it.    The  way  that  is  now  ordinarily 

ufed,  WE  CANNOT  DENY  TO  HAVE  BFEN  A  NOVSLTY, 

brought  into  the  church  by  thofe  who  le.irned  it  in 
Germany  or  at  Geneva  This  honeft  confelHon, 
with  what  we  have  quoted  from  Eufebius  and  Cave, 
militates  exceedingly  with  Mr.  Worcelter's  "  well  fajv 
ported  raft,"  of  the  fcriptural  validity  of  fprinkling. 

After  fpending  a  number  of  pages,  in  attempting  to 
prove  the  validity  of  fprinkling  from  the  practice  of 
the  Paedobaptift  churches,  without  producing  the  leaft 
'fcriptttre  authority.,  Mr.  Worcefter  adds,  "  The  fair  and 
inDincible  conclunon  then  is,  that  fprinkling  or  aft'ufion, 
the  mode  of  baptifm  prafiifed  in  thefe  churches,  is 
fcriptural  and  valid."  On  what  does  this  invincible  con- 
cluQon  reft  Why  truly,  on  this,  That  the  Pxdobap- 
tifts,  who  are  God's  true  church  in  an  exrlufive  fcnle, 
have  for  centuries  pradtifed  fprinkling  in  the  room  of 
immerfion,  therefore  it  muft  be  "  fcriptural  and  valid." 
The  author  does  not  pretend  to  have  proved  it  from 
the  Bible,  but  informs  us  "  there  is  nothing  in  the 
fcriptures  againft  it,  but  much,  as  might  be  ihewn  did 
titne  permit,  in  favour  of  it."  (page  ()9  )  Vvliat  a  pity 
it  is  that  he  had  not  fpared  fome  of  his  time  fpcnt  in 
inveftives  againft  the  liaptifts,  and  proved  this  important 
point.  If  it  had  been  of  no  fervicc  ro  us,  it  might  have 
helped  fome  of  his  wavering  brethren,  who  we  conceive 

*  Ecd  Hift.  t  Prim-  Chrlf.  t  Hift.  Infant  Bap. 

§  Ecd.  Hul.  •        U  Hill:  Bap.  and  Kcd.  Refearches.  ' 
\  Defence  of  Hift.  Infant  Bap.  p.  146. 


APPENDIX. 


sn 


muft  be  more  perplexed  than  ever,  from  the  confufed 
contradiclory  account  he  has  given  of  the  ordinance. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  conceded,  not  only  implicitly,  but 
in  direct  terms,  that  immerfion  was  the  ancient  ordinary 
mode  :  yea,  that  it  was  praclifed  in  the  days  of  Chrift 
r.nd  his  apoftles  ;  and  after  all  denied  thai  there  is  any 
proof  of  it.  We  will  place  his  oblervations  before  the 
reader,  and  leave  him  to  make  his  own  comments. 

Speaking  of  baptifm  in  the  "  firft  ages  of  Chriftiani- 
ty,"  he  fays,  "Even  thofe  who  in  ordinary  cafes  hnptizej 
h  ivvnerficn,  did  not  deny,  but  iidmitted  the  validity  of 
bnptifm  by  fprinkling  or  atFulion."  (page  64,  Q3.) 
Again,  «<  The  queftion  properly  between  us  is  tut  this, 
Whether  ANY  were  baptized  in  the  days  of  Christ 

AND  His  APOSILES  BY  IMMERSION    OR  DIPPING  ;  but 

it  is  precifely  this,  Whether  immerlion  or  dipping 
be  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptifm  ?  (Note,  page  73.) 
He  quotes  the  following  from  Dr.  Wall  :  "  The 
ancient  Chriftians,  wl  en  they  ivere  bnpt'Zi'd  by  lyiy.v.K- 
srON,  were  all  baptized  naked,  &c."  "  It  is  a  clear  cjfe," 
lays  the  autlior,  "that  luh^n  they  'w^re  baptized  b;-  im- 
mersion, they  were  immerfed  three  times,  &c."  (Note 
page  74.)  Thefe  are  fome  of  the  conceifions  in  the 
difcourfes  before  us.  The  following  appear  to  us  like 
coiitradi»Siions.  "  We  have  (faith  the  author)  no  evi- 
dence in  t!ie  fcriptures,  that  in  the  days  of  Chrift  and 
his  apoftles,  any  perfon  ivas  bapti:zed  by  immersion."  (page 
69.)  "  Could  it  even  be  proved,  as  however  it  cannot 
be,  thui  fome  ivere  baptized  in  the  apojlUs'  days  by  immer- 
sion, it  would  avail  nothing  againft  our  praftice,  unlel's 
it  could  be  proved  that  none  were  baptised  in  any  other 
way."'  (Note,  page  73.) 

It  is  thought  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  fallen  into  the 
fame  inconfillencies  in  defending  his  own  practice  as  in 
oppofing  ours.  The  following  is  a  fpecimen  :  "  As 
there  was  (faith  he)  no  dii'pute  about  baptifm  in  the 
lirft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  it  ihould  not  be  expefted  that 
much  would  be  found  particularly  on  the  fubject,  in 
the  writings  of  thofe  ages.  But  becaufe  there  is  no- 
thing directly  on  the  subject  either  for  or 
AGAINST  infant  BAPTISM,  in  the  fragments  which  have 
come  down  to  ,us  of  the  writings  of  the  firft  century. 


312 


APPENDIX. 


the  Antlpxdobaptifts,  with  an  afflirance  peculiar  to  them- 
felves,  have  undertaken  to  ciffcrt.,  not  to  prove,  that 
during  the  firll:  century,  infant  baptifm  was  not  pra£\ifed 
in  the  church."  (Note,  page  60.)  After  thus  acknowl- 
edging that  in  the  writings  of  the  firft  century  there  is 
nothing  direcftly  "either  for  or  againft  infant  baptifm," 
he  goes  on  to  fay,  that  "  in  the  writings  of  CUmunus  Ro- 
manus,  and  Hermes  Paftor,  both  coteniporaries  with  the 
apoftles,  paffages  are  extant,  which  by  fair  wiplicalhfi, 
prove  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  in  their  day."* 

*  There  is  an  ingenious  obfcurity  in  the  manner  of  Mr.  Worcefter's 
quoting  thefe  ancient  write: s.  Had  we  no  other  means  of  .-.fcertain- 
ing  the  time  when  t!iey  lived  and  wrote,  but  the  ftatement  in  the  note 
before  us,  it  would  noc  be  very  eafy  to  determine  in  what  century  they 
lived.  An  incautious  reader  might  fujipoic  that  they  all  lived  in  or  near 
the  firft  century  ;  whereas  the  faift  is,  they  extend  through  four  or  five. 
"  Tertullian,"  fays  the  author  !)cfore  \is,  "  was  about  li  years  old  when 
Polycarp  died  "  But  how  are  we  to  know  when  Polycarp  died  ? 
Again,  "  Cyprian,  bifhop  of  Carthage,  who  fuffered  martyrdom  for  the 
Chiriftian  faith,  only  about  five  years  from  the  death  of  Origeu  "  Ah, 
indeed,  it  is  prefumed  that  every  one  knows  when  Origen  died  !  But 
what  of  Cypri:in  Why,  lie  '  was  prefident  of  a  council  which  con- 
fifced  of  fixty-fix  bifliops  or  paftois  of  churches,  and  v/hich  delivered  an 
unanimous  opinion  that  the  baptifm  of  infants  was  not  to  be  deferred 
(as  fome  hud  fii)  po!ed  it  I'hould  be)  until  the  eighth  day,  but  mig.'it  be 
given  them  at  anytime  before"  But  wlien  was  this  council  held.' 
Wlir,  fome  time  in  the  life  of  Cyprian,  and  he  fuffered  martyrdom  on- 
ly five  years  after  the  death  of  Origen.  Now  who  ceuld  tell  by  all 
this  whether  this  council  war  held  in  the  firft,  fecond  or  third  century 
But  what  does  the  rclult  of  ic  prove,  with  refpeifl  to  infant  baptlfrn's 
being  an  apoftolic  praiSice  ?  Noihing  at  ail  we  conceive,  but  much  to 
the  contrary.  The  faA  is,  this  council  was  in  the  year  156.  The 
occafioB  was,  a  country  bifhop  by  the  name  of  Fidus  could  not  deter- 
mine by  his  Bible,  nor  by  any  \jlV.ge  of  the  church,  whether  new  born 
infants  might  be  baptized,  or  whether  it  muft  he  deferred  until  the 
eighth  day.  He  applied  to  Cyprian,  but  he  had  no  rule  by  which  to 
determine  the  queftion,  until  it  wa»  fettled  by  the  opinion  of  the  above 
council.  If  it  had  been  the  conftant  pradlice  of  the  whole  Chriftian 
church  from  the  firft  inftitution  of  baptifm,  which  was  now  more  thsui 
aoo  years,  to  bapliae  infants,  would  luch  an  important  tirciunftance 
have  betti  unnoticed  all  this  lime     It  is  abfolutely  incicdible. 

To  the  above  account  the  author  adds,  "  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Bafil, 
Ambrofe,  C:hryfoftome,  and  Jerome,  all  of  whom  flourilhed  within 
about  a  hundred  years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian,  arc  all  explicit  on  the 
fubjed  ;  explain  the  dtfign  of  infant  baptifm,  &c."  (Note,  page  60.) 
The  above  Oientioned  ail  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  one  or  more 
cf  them  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth.  As  thcl'e  are  faid  to-be  "  explicit 
on  the  fubjed,  and  to  explain  the  dejign  of  infant  baptifm  we  tbipk 
it  wi.uld  pratify  our  readers,  to  know  v.'hat  the  difi^n  of  it  was.  We 
will  give  theav  the  opinion  cf  the  £rft  of  them.    Gregory,  as  delivered 


APPENDIX. 


What  a  happy  knatk  fome  men  have  at  proving  their 
point.  When  all  other  evidence  fails,  they  can  prove 
it  completely  by  implication  ;  and  even  from  writings 
too,  which  fay  "  nothing  direftly  on  the  fiibjeft,  either 
for  or  againft  it."  We  regret  exceedingly,  however, 
that  thofe  "paffages"  which  prove  infant  baptifm  by 
fair  implication,  had  not  been  fet  down,  fo  that  we  might 
have  judged  of  the  evidence  for  ourfelves.  Or  had  the 
author  only  favoured  us  with  correft  references  to  the 
book  and  page,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  fome  might 
have  taken  the  liberty  to  have  cx-.mined  the  originals 
for  themfeh  es.  However,  it  is  beft  to  proceed  cau- 
tioufly  ;  there  might  be  fome  danger  apprehended  from 
this  i  for  '<  of  late  (fays  he)  one  can  hardly  meet  with 
an  Antipaidobaptift,  who  is  not  prepared  to  talk  fo 
fluently  and  learnedly  of  the  meaning  of  Greek  and 
Z,atifi  words,  as  ahnofl:  to  amaze  one  !  !  "  Kad  fuch 
references  been  made,  it  is  pofllble  that  fome  of  this 
evidence  by  implication  mi^ht  have  been  dilputed. 

Several  other  writers  of  the  two  firlt  centuries  are 
mentioned  ;  but  none  of  them  as  giving  explicit  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  infant  baptifm,  till  we  come  to  Ori- 
gan, towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  We  are 
willing  that  the  teflimony  of  Origen  ILould  have  its 
proper  weight ;  but  we  are  perfuaded,  that  fuch  as 
know  his  true  charafler,  as  it  ftands  on  the  page  of 
hiftory,  will  attach  vt  ;  y  little  confidence  to  what  he  has 
faid  on  this  point.  The  following  is  quoted  from  him 
by  Dr.  Molheim :  "  The  fcriptures  are  of  little  ufe  to 
tliofe  who  underftand  them  as  they  are  written."  To 

in  his  fortieth  Oration  in  the  year  .^8r.  "But,  fay  fome,  what  is 
your  ojiinion  of  infants,  who  arc  not  capable  of  judgiug  cither  of  the 
g'are  of  baptifm,  or  of  the  d^imjg'  fuftoinctl  by  the  want  of  it  ;  fliall 
We  baptize  them  too  ?  By  ali  nicans,  if  there  be.  ary  apparent  danger. 
tor  it  were  better  that  they  wtrx:  fana^fscd  ivithout  their  liiotuin^  H, 
than  that  they  Ihould  die  without  being  iealetl  and  initiated.  As  for 
otlwri,  I  give  my  opinion,  that  when  they  arc  three  years  of  ajje,  or 
thereabouts  (for  then  they  are  able  to  hear  and  arifwer  fome  of  the 
myftical  words,  and  although  they  do  not  fui'y  underftar.d,  they  may  re- 
ceive impreflions)  they  may  be  fandified  both  foul  and  boily  by  the 
great  myllcry  of  initiation  "  (Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  xL  in '  Robinfoo  ) 
What  wondciful  children,  to  underftand  fuch  profound  my fit  i  ies  at  three 
years  old  !  And  what  an  amazing  effcift  this  bufinefs  of  initiation  had, 
to  fandify  thtni  throjohcut  in  foul  and  botly. 


314. 


APPENDIX. 


■which  the  Doftor  adds  this  obfcrvation  :  "  He  could  not 
find  in  the  Bible  the  opinions  he  had  adopted,  as  long 
as  he  interpreted  that  facred  book  according  to  its  literal 
fenfe>,"*  It  is  of  little  confeqnence  in  this  difpute,  to 
know  that  men  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  ap- 
proved and  praflifed  infant  baptifm.  Nor  do  we  con- 
ceive that  the  "impregnable  teftimony"  of  Pelagius, 
(a  man  condemned  by  all  the  ancient  fathers  as  a  her- 
etic) adds  any  ftrcngth  to  Mr.  Worccfter's  argument. 

Another  argument  in  favour  of  fprinkling,  and  againft 
immerfion,  which  makes  a  confiderable  figure  in  thefe 
difcourfes,  and  in  the  writings  of  fome  others,  is,  that 
fprinkling  is  the  nicjl  eafy  and  convenient  mode.  "Of  the 
fevernl  accounts  of  baptifms  recorded  in  the  fcriptures, 
I  think  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  it  will  appear  that  thofe 
baptifm-.  were  performed  in  the  mofl  eafy  and  convenient 
mode."  (page  70.)  He  fuppofes  that  when  John's  can- 
didates were  "  affembled  upon  the  banks  of  the  Jordan, 
the  mod:  convenient  way  would  be  for  them  to  go  down 
to  the  brink  of  the  water,  and  there  be  baptized  by 
affufion  or  fprinkling."  "  On  the  day  of  penteco/iy  (he 
adds)  when  three  thoufands  were  baptized  in  a  very 
fhort  time  ;  they  were  at  the  temple  in  the  midft  of 
Jerufalem,  where  the  mofi:  convenient,  if  not  the  only 
way,  would  be  to  have  water  brought  in  a  bafon,  or 
fome  other  vellel,  and  baptize  them  in  the  fame  way." 
(page  72.)  It  would  feem,  by  thefe  obfervations,  that 
the  command  of  God  muft  yield  to  our  conyeniency. 
What  exalted  ideas  fuch  men  muft  have  of  the  authority 
of  God  in  his  pofiitive  inltitutions,  to  fuppoi'e  we  are  to 
accommodate  them  to  our  own  convenicncy  !  Had  good 
old  Abraham,  at  the  age  of  ninety-nine,  confultcd  his 
convenicncy,  would  he  not  probably  have  preferred  cut- 
ting the  end  of  his  little  finger,  to  the  part  appointed 
by  the  inftitution  of  circumcifion  ? 

We  have  no  right  nor  willi  to  fay,  that  our  brethren 
fliall  not  confult  their  convenience  in  the  adminiftration 
of  the  ordinance  ;  but  for  ourfclves,  we  hope  never  to 
think  it  inconvenient  to  obey  the  commands  of  Chrift, 
and  follow  the  example  of  him  who  thought  it  no  inccn- 

*  Moftcini,  Vol.  1.  page  zyr,  rote. 


APPENDIX. 


315 


vei)ietKS  to  travel  on  foot  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  to  be 
immerfed  by  John  in  that  river. 

Sprinkling  is  -^ilfo  faid  to  have  another  great  advan- 
tage over  immerfion  :  It  is  not  only  n-.ore  convenient, 
but  "  more  compatible  with  every  idea  of  propriety  and 
DF.cENCY."  (page  73.) 

Dr.  Ofgood  *  dilates  largely  on  the  decency  of  their 
practice,  and  the  indecency  of  ours.  "  To  ine,  (faith 
he)  indeed,  this  (fprinkiing)  appears  the  only  mode  in 
which  the  ordinance  can  be  adminiftcred  with  that 
order,  liecency"  &c.  He  adds,  "Their  leaving  the  place 
of  worfnip,y?rfrt/7j/w^  away  in  the  open  air  to  fome  pond 
or  river,  and  in  all  fenfons  and  crimates,  changing  their 
apparel  in  order  to  their  being  totally  immerfed  in  the 
•water,  out  of  which  they  corne  drenched  and  Jlnvering^' 
&c.  (page  8.)  He  concludes,  however,  that  "  baptifm 
by  immerfion  might  not,  perhaps,  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  be  ofFcnfive  in  Judea  ;  nor  can  we  fay  that 
it  would  difguft  the  uncultivated  and  unclothed  inhab- 
itants of  South  Africa,  even  now  ;  but  it  is  certain,  that 
the  cuftom  of  plunging  mixed  multitudes  of  men  and 
women,  either  in  thin  veftments  or  in  their  ufual  drefs, 
is  deemed  indecorous  by  rnoft  people  accuftomed  to 
poliftied  manners."  (page  14.)  Eighteen  centuries  ago, 
it  feems,  then,  it  might  not  have  been  offenftve  for  Jefus 
and  his  difciples  to  be  immerfed,  but  it  is  now  abfolutely 
"  indecorous "  to  follow  their  example  !  And  is  there 
nothing,  dear  fir,  ''indecorous"  in  comparing  the  ftate 
of  manners  in  the  priiritive  Chriftian  church,  contain- 
ing Chrift  and  all  his  difciples,  to  the  loweft  dregs  of 
the  human  race  to  the  Bofckemen  or  %vild  Hottentots 
of  South  Africa  ?  Muft  not  iuch  a  Gomparifon  ftrike  a 
tender  mind  with  horror,  and  be  conlidered  as  a  moft 
fevere  reflexion  on  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  and 
all  his  immediate  followers  .''  Who  can  help  reflefting 
on  the  prophetic  language  of  David,  when  pcrfonating 
Chrift,  The  reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  are  fallen 
upon  wf.f  Is  the  religion  of  Jelus,  efpecially  its  inftitu- 
tions,  when  pracHfed  as  they  were  in  «  Judea  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago,  deemed  indecorous  "  by  people  of 


*  Two  DIfcourfes  at  Maiden.  \  Pfil-.n  Ixix.  9. 


316 


APPENDIX. 


«  polifhed  manners  ?"  Such  people  would  do  well  ts 
remember,  that  the  fr'iendfJnp  of  the  world  is  etmitty  ivitb 
God  and  that  Chrift,  in  order  to  guard  his  people 
againft  this  temporizing  fpirit,  has  faid,  Whcfotver  Jhall 
be  ASHAM£D  of  vie,  mid  of  my  words,  of  him  fliall  the  Son 
oj  Man  he  nfJjamed,  •when  he  fjjall  come  in  his  own  gfory, 
and  in  his  Father  s,  and  of  the  holy  angels. \ 

But  what  aftoniflies  us  moft  of  all,  is,  that'  after  all 
this  outcry  about  decency  and  offending  againft  polifhed 
tncinncrs ,  that  the  Doftor  fhould  inform  the  world,  that 
their  minifters  will  be  guilty  of  doing  the  fame  !  !  Yes, 
"  we  are  (faith  he)  far  from  calling  in  queftion  the 
validity  of  theirs,  (meaning  our  mode  of  baptifm) ;  nay, 
in  condefcenilon  to  the  confciences  of  thofe  who  requefl 
it,  cur  miniften  fcruple  not  to  baptize  by  iintnerfijn"  Is  it 
poffible,  Doflor  ?  What !  will  your  minifters  and  their 
people  "  go  ftreaming  away  in  the  open  air  to  fome 
pond  or  river  r"  What !  and  with  as  little  fenfe  of 
decency  as  the  Baptifts,  be  "totally  immerfed  in  the 
water,"  and  like  them  "  come  drenched  and  Ihlvering  " 
out  of  it  ?  It  is  perfectly  aftoniiliing  !  But  why  do  they 
thus  trefpafs  upon  the  cuftoms  of  "  polifhed  manners  ?" 
Why  ?  not  indeed  from  a  confcientious  regard  to  the 
command  or  example  of  Chrift,  but  "  in  condefcenfion 
to  the  confciences  of  thofe  who  requeft  it."  So  great 
is  their  condefcenfion ^  that  it  feems  they  can  become  till 
things  to  all  men,  that  by  all  means  they  may  five  fsme — of 
their  people  from  going  over  to  the  Baptifts. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  mentioned  one  fpecies  of  inde- 
cency, which  he  fuggefts  was  pradVifcd  anciently  in  im- 
merfion,  v/hlch  in  this  age  of  improvement  is  wholly 
done  away.  He  relates  the  ftory  from  Dr.  Wall,  and 
he  from  Vofiius,  and  where  he  got  it  nobody  knows  ; 
but  it  is  thus  related  in  the  difcourfes  before  us  :  "  The 
ancient  Chriftians,"  fays  Dr.  Wall,  "  when  they  were 
baptized  by  immerfion,  were  all  baptized  naked,  whether 
they  were  men,  women,  or  children.  Vofluis  has  col- 
Ie<Sted  feveral  proofs  of  this,  which  I  (liall  omit,  bccaufe 
it  is  a  clear  cafe."  (Note,  page  74-.)  If  Mr.  Worcefter 
is  acquainted  with  Dr.  Wall's  writings,  as  he  undoubt- 


♦  Jatiicj  iv.  4. 


f  Lwke  ix.  16. 


APPENDIX. 


S17 


edly  is,  he  muft  certainly  know  that  the  DoiHior  has 
ftrenuoiifly  afferted  that  immerfion  was  the  priinitR-e 
ordinary  mode  throughout  ahnoft  the  whole  Chrirtiaa 
world,  for  thirteen  centuries,  and  in  many  countries 
mtich  longer.*  Can  any  man  in  his  fenfes  iuppole  tiiat 
Dr.  Wall  ferioufly  believed,  that  during  this  long  pe- 
riod of  thirteen  or  fifteen  centuries,  there  was  not  a 
fcrap  of  modefty  in  the  whole  Chriftian  world  ?  Would 
he  h.ive  pleaded  for  the  reftoration  of  a  practice  that 
had  conftantly  been  a  reproach  to  decency  ?  We  hard- 
ly think  it. 

But  we  Ihould  like  to  know  who  this  Voflius  was, 
who  furniflied  this  indecent  ftory,  that  we  may  know 
what  degree  of  credit  is  due  to  it.    Was  it  Ifaac  V .fftiisy 
who  came  over  from  Leyden  ta  England  in  1670,  whom 
king  Charles  made  canon  of  Windfor  ?   Of  this  perfoa 
an  Englifh  biographer  thus  remarks  ;  that  Charles  kaew 
his  character  well  enough  to  fay,  "  there  was  nothing 
that  Voflius  refufed  to  hdievcy  excepting  the  Bible  !"  He 
further  adds,  «  He  appears  indeed  by  his  publications — 
to  have  been  a  mofl:  credulous  man,  while  he  afforded 
many  circumilances  to  bring  his  religious  faith  in  quef- 
tion."    If  there  be  no  other  proof  that  the  ancient 
Chriftians  baptized  naked,  than  what  can  be  gathered 
from  the  writings  of  fuch  a  man,  we  lliall  think  our- 
felves  at  liberty  to  doubt  it.    But,  true  or  falie,  Mr. 
Worcertor  has  cleared  the  Baptifts  of  the  difgraceful 
ftory.    For  this  pradiice  is  faid  by  Dr.  Wall  to  have 
been  among  the  ancient  Chriftians.    "  But  the  Anabap-. 
tifts,  or  Antipajdobaptifts,"  fays  our  author,  "  are  a  feet 
of  modern  date.    They  had  their  origin  fome  time 
after  the  reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin."  (P.  66.) 
According  to  this,  the  Piedobaptifts  may  place  all  thefe 
naked  folks  to  their  own   account.     And  if  they 
confult  Dr.  Mofheim,  (vol.  i.  p.  227)  or  Broughton's 
Hiftorical  Library,  (vol.  i  p.  14)  they  may  find  an  ac- 
count of  others,  who,  it  is  faid,  went  naked,  not  indeed 
into  the  water ^  but  into  their  public  afTeinbUes.f 

*  Sec  Part  IT.  Scd.  iv.  and  t. 

f  That  people  in  warm  climates  anciently  went  alirod  ii:IteJ,  t>i?» 
with  only  a  covering  round  the  waift,  no  body  will  cliipu:c.     !!    ;  , 

E  e 


APPENDIX. 


By  dating  the  origin  of  the  Baptifts  "  fome  time  after 
the  retonnation,"  our  opponents  exonerate  ///  from  all 
■<he  indecencies,  pious  frainls,  errors,  herefies,  and  per- 
fecutions, which  difgracedChriftianity  before  that  period. 

We  mufi:  here  beg  the  reader's  indulgence  while  we 
digrefs  a  few  moments  from  our  fubject,  with  a  view  to 
repel  an  ungenerous  inlinuation  refpefting  our  origin. 
The  riot  at  Munfter,  in  which  fome  who  oppofed  and 
denied  infant  baptifm  were  concerned  with  others  who 
held  it,  is  generally  fixed  upon  as  the  mofl  diflionoura- 
ble  part  of  our  hiftory.  We  regret  that  our  limits  will 
not  allow  us  to  vindicate  ourfelves  more  fully  from  the 
unhandfome  things  which  have  been  fo  often  fuggefted, 
from  that  tranfaftion,  with  a  view  to  injure  our  charac- 
ter as  a  religious  denomination.  But  we  can  here  only 
fay,  that  we  verily  believe,  that  to  take  the  account  of 
the  German  Anabaptifts,  as  given  by  their  enemies, 
nothing  will  be  found  either  more  wicked  or  difgrace- 
ful  in  this  left,  than  may  be  found  in  the  origin  of  al- 
moll  any  other  ancient  feft,  taking  their  hiftory  from 
the  fame  fource. 

For  inflance  ;  the  Independents  in  England,  from 
whom  the  prefent  refpeftable  Congregational  Churches 
in  this  country  defcended.  If  you  take  their  hiltory 
from  Ciaretidotiy  Echard,  Parker^  or  even  from  Raphi, 
you  will  find  the  obfervation  juftiried.  The  latter, 
though  a  foreigner,  is  allowed  to  have  written  one  of 
the  beft  hiftorics  of  England  extant.  This  illuftrious 
writer,  faith  Dr.  Mofheim,  reprefents  the  "  Independeuts 
under  fuch  horrid  colours,  that,  were  his  portrait  juft, 
they  would  not  deferve  to  enjoy  the  light  of  the  fun,  or 
to  breathe  the  free  air  of  Britain  ;  much  lefs  to  be  treat- 
ed with  indulgfnce  and  cfieem,  by  thofe  who  have  the 
c  jul'e  of  virtue  at  heart."  However  unjuftly  they  might 
be  acculcd,  "the  moft  eminent  Englilh  writers,  (adds 
the  Doctor)  not  only  among  the  patrons  of  Epifcopacy, 
but  among  thofe  very  Prcjbyterians,  with  'whom  they 
are  now  united,  have  thrown  out  againft  them  the  bit- 
is  fiHl  pfafliffd  by  thr  inli.ibitants  of  the  torrid  zone.  That  they  went 
into  tilt-  .v.:tfi  ill  their  ufual  drcfs  is  highly  probable  ;  but  that  any 
V.  tT:  I  iipt;z».ii  vvitl.out  a  covering  rouad  the  waiA,  we  have  feen  no 


APPENDIX. 


919 


relr  acciifations  and  the  fevereft  inve(f>ives,  that  the 
^.  M^me^t  imagination  could  invent.  rhey  have  not  on- 
ly been  reprcfeiited  as  delirious,  mad,  fanatical,  illite- 
rate, factious,  and  ignorant  both  of  natural  and  revealed 
religion  ;  but  alio  abandoned  to  all  kinds  of  wickednefs 
and  ledition,  and  as  the  only  authors  of  the  odious  par- 
ricide committed  on  the  perfon  of  Charles  I  "*  We  do 
not  pretend  to  vouch  for  the  truth  of  thefe  things,  nor 
do  we  believe  them  generally  to  be  true ;  but  only  men- 
tion them  to  ihew  that  other  lecl:s  have  been  a>  fevere- 
ly  cenfured  as  the  Anabaptilis.  If  we  compare  the  ac- 
counts given  by  the  enemies  of  the  two  fedts,  this  will 
be  about  the  reiult — ^The  fanatics  of  one,  in  their  wild 
zeal,  fet  up  a  king  ;  and  the  fanatics  >.f  the  other  pulled 
down  theirs. 

But  even  admitting  all  that  has  been  faid  of  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptifts  to  be  true,  and  we  can  fee  no  more 
propriety  in  reproaching  the  prefent  Baptifts  with  it, 
than  there  would  be  in  reproaching  the  prefent  Psedo- 
baptirts  with  all  the  errors,  debaucheries,  and  enormou-; 
cruelties  committed  by  the  Pa'dobaptifts  of  Rome.  The 
fa£t  is,  though  we  agree  eiTentially  with  the  German 
Baptifts  in  the  article  of  baptilm,  yet  we  totally  difap- 
prove  of  their  diforderly,  feditious  fanaticifm.  So  we 
underftand  our  brethren,  that  while  they  agree  with  the 
church  of  Rome  in  their  infant  baptifm,  they  difagree 
with  their  fentiments  and  praftice  generally.  The  only 
inquiry  which  a  candid  mind  would  here  make  would 
be  this ;  Is  there  any  thing  in  immerlion  which  has  a 
natural  tendency  to  fanaticifm  and  ffdition  ? 

Our  objeft  in  this  fe(flion  was  not  particularly  to  ex- 
hibit all  the  proofs  in  favour  of  immerlion  of  which  the 
fubjedt  is  fufceptible,  (as  that,  we  conceive,  has  beea 
fulhciently  done,  Part  II  fetSt.  iv.  and  v.)  but  more  efpe- 
eially  to  remove  fome  of  the  obje^lipn.-  which  have  been 
raifed  againft  the  practice  by  its  oppofers.  \Ve  have 
endeavoured  candidly  to  meet  the  moft  weighty  and 
p^'pular  objections,  and  the  public  will  ju  ?ge  whether 
we  have  refuted  them  or  not.  A  few  additional  obfer* 
▼ations  lhall  clofe  the  lection. 


•Eecl.  HiQ.  vol  v  p.  181,  183. 


APPENDIX. 


<f  The  Greek  word  bapiizo"  fays  Mr,  Worcefter, 
«  determines  nothing  in  refpeft  to  the  particular  niot'e 
in  Avhich  water  is  to  be  apphed."  (P.  6!J.)  Tins  is  cer- 
tainly an  unplenfant  circumftance,  if  true,  ^hat  a  word 
Is  made  ufe  of  to  defcribe  a  particular  action,  and  yet 
that  it  has  no  definite  meaning,  fo  that  we  can  pofliblr 
determine  from  it  what  is  to  be  done.  "  Every  ptrfon," 
faj^s  Dr.Ofgood,  "  who  hath  the  like  acquaintance  with 
them  (that  is,  with  the  original  languages  as  himfelf ) 
well  knows,  that  the  Greek  word  for  baptifm  fignifies 
any  kind  of  wafliing,  by  fprinkling  or  affufion,  as  often, 
if  not  much  oftener,  than  by  dipping."  The  object  with 
both  thefe  writers  is  evidently  the  fame  :  it  is  to  throve 
the  word  into  a  ftate  of  complete  uncertainty,  and  in 
this  way  to  fecure  the  validity  of  fprinkling.  It  means, 
according  to  them,  any  kind  of  wafliing,  either  by  dip- 
ping, pouring  on  water,  or  fprinkling.  Nor  is  there 
any  diredion  to  what  part  the  water  is  to  be  applied  ; 
•whetlier  to  the  head,  the  hands,  or  the  feet.  We  know 
of  nothing  but  cuftom,  which  has  determined  the  appli- 
cation of  it  to  the  forehead. 

We  wifli  here  to  ftate  a  cafe,  and  fliould  be  much 
gratified  in  a  fair  anfwer.  Suppofing  a  family  of  the 
defcendants  of  Abraham  were  to  embrace  Chriftianity 
under  the  miniftry  of  the  Psedobaptifts,  and  fliould  re- 
ceive their  doftrine  of  baptifm,  as  coming  in  the  room 
of  circumcifion  ;  and  (hould  hence  infift,  that  in  order 
to  render  it  analogous  to  that  rite,  the  water  muft  be 
;ipplied  to  the  fame  part ;  would  thefe  gentlemen,  in 
their  great  **  condefcenfion  to  the  confciences"  of  their 
Jewifli  converts,  apply  water  in  this  way  ?  Could  they 
make  any  fair  objedlicn,  and  ftill  fupport  their  baptifm 
on -the  ground  of  circumcifion  ?  We  iliould  fnppofe  not. 
If  the  manner  of  applying  water  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  confcience'^,  or  rather  fancies  of  the  candidates  for 
the  ordinance;  then  any  way,  and  to  any  part  which 
they  may  chojfe,  muft  be  confidered  as  valid  baptifm. 

But  let  us  for  a  moment  inquire  if  the  word  buptizoy 
which  is  rendered  buptizei  has  not  a  primary  meaning, 
fufficiently  definite  to  direft  our  praflice.  "  The  word," 
favs  a  very  fenfible  writer,  "  is  confefl'edly  Greek.  Na- 
tive Greeks  underftand  their  own  language  better  than 


APPENDIX. 


321 


foreigners  ;  and  they  have  always  untlerftood  the  word 
to  me,\n  (lipping  ;  therefore  from  their  firft  embracing 
Chrlftianity  to  this  day,  they  have  ahvays  baptized,  and 
do  yet  baptize  by  immerfon."*  We  appeal  to  our  learn- 
ed opponents  to  fay,  whether  the  Greek  church  in  all 
its  branches,  even  the  cold  regions  of  Ruffia  not  except- 
ed, has  not  to  the  prefent  time  praclifed  itnmeyfwn  ?  We 
hence  reafon  in  this  way  : — The  New  Tefianr.ent  was 
originally  written  in  Greek  ;  that  native  Greeks  under- 
ftood  the  word  baptizo  as  we  do,  to  mean  immerfion, 
and  confequenily  they  always  praftifed  immerfion  : 
this  alone,  we  fhould  fuppofe,  would  be  allowed  to  be 
decilive  evidence  of  the  meaning  of  the  word. — The 
beft  critics  of  all  the  Chriftian  fecl:s  have  agreed  with 
Leigh,f  «  that  the  native  and  proper  fignification  of  it 
(baptizo)  is  to  dip  into  water,  or  to  plunge  under  water" — 
When  the  a(SHon  is  defcribed  in  tlie  New  Tetlament, 
it  is  defcribed  by  their  going  down  into  the  water,  a»d 
coming  up  out  of\t ;  which  would  be  abfurd  upon  any 
other  principle  but  immerfion. — ^That  it  was  under- 
ftood  in  the  fame  fenfe  by  the  Chriftian  church  general- 
ly during  the  firft  centuries  ;  this  is  evident  from  every 
ecclefiallical  writer  of  any  note  whofe  works  have  come 
to  our  knowledge.  Thefe  things  tonfidered,  can  there 
a  doubt  remain  as  to  its  proper  meaning  ? 

As  we  have  quoted  largely  from  the  above  clafs  of 
writers  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  work,  we  (hall  here 
only  add  two  or  three  quotations  from  Dr.  Molheim. 
In  defcribing  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  firfl:  cen- 
tury, he  fays,  «  The  facrament  of  haptifm  was  adminif- 
tered  in  this  century,  in  places  appointed  and  prepared 
for  that  purpofe  ;  and  was  performed  by  immerfion  of  the 
'whole  body  in  the  baptifmal  font.":j:  In  this  author,  there 
is  not  a  word  to  be  found  in  the  hiftory  of  this  century, 
of  pouring  or  fprinkhng,  as  '«  a  fcriptural  and  valid  mode 
of  baptifm."  But  what  may  be  done  by  "  fair  implica- 
tion," we  pretend  not  to  fay. 

Let  us  now  follow  this  learned  hiftorian  into  the  next 
century,  and  fee  how  the  ordinance  was  then  adminif- 
tered.  ««  The  perfons,"  faith  he,  «<  to  be  baptized,  after 
E  e  2 

•  Robinfon's  Hift.  Bapt  p.  j.  |  Crit.  Sacra. 

\  EccJ.  Hia.  vol.i  p.  146. 


3^2 


APPENDIX. 


they  had  repeated  the  creed,  confeffed  stird  renounce* 
their  fins,  and  particularly  the  devil  in  his  pompous  al- 
lurements, were  IMMERSED  under  -water,  and  received 
into  Ciirift's  kingdom,  by  a  folemn  invocation  of  Father, 
Son  "  &c.  (Ibid.  p.  206  ) 

Thus,  according  to  Dr.  Moilieim,  (and  it  niuft  not  be 
forgotten  that  he  was  aPsedobaptift)  the  apoftolic  mode 
of  baptitm  was  prefcrved  tlirough  this  century.  Had 
either  fprinkling  or  njfufiou  been  pra^tiled  in  thefe  centu- 
ries, is  it  not  perfectly  uiisccountable  that  not  a  hint 
fliould  be  given  of  if  by  this  author  ?  What  couid  in- 
duce him  to  keep  fuch  a  fullen  filence  about  it  f  Had 
he  not  the  advantage  of  examining  the  writings  of  Cle- 
mens, He  -rnes,  Jujt'tn  Martp;  Irenatis,  and  all  the  other 
ancient  writers  mentioned  by  Mr.  Worcefter  ?  He  un- 
doubtedly had,  for  he  has  quoted  from  many  if  not  all 
of  them. 

If  the  fullefl:  evidence  could  be  exhibited  of  the  ex- 
iftence  of  infant  baptifm,  in  the  third  and  fucceeding 
centuries,  and  that  it  were  then  practiled  by  pouring  or 
fprinkling,  it  would  afford  no  decifive  evidence  that  ei- 
ther were  pra^tifed  by  the  apoftles.  Any  one  who  has 
taken  the  pains  to  trace  the  progrefs  of  innovation,  will 
be  fully  convinced  of  this  :  he  will  find  fuch  an  increafe 
of  rites  and  ceremonies  from  century  to  century,  as  in  a 
little  time  to  change  the  vifible  afpecT:  of  almoft  the 
whole  Chrifl;ian  church.  But  notwithftanding  this  gen- 
eral departure  from  apoftolic  purity  both  in  doftrine  ;ind 
manners,  immerji'.n  held  its  indifputable  claim,  of  being, 
the  divinely  appointed  mode  of  baptifm.  We  fay  nude, 
becaufe  fprinkling  in  fome  infiances  was  admitted,  in 
cafe.s  of  danger  of  deatii,  as  a  fubfiitute.  And  we  verily 
believe,  that  *'  after  all  the  laborious  and  ollentatious 
criticiim"  upon  baptizo,  to  m^ke  it  mean  pouring  or 
fpnnk/ing  and  upon  Vw,  apo,  and  e-a,*  there  could  not 
be  found  among  the  Piedobaptifts  themfelves,  one  per- 
foii  in  ten  who  had  ever  thought  on  the  fubject,  but 
would  freely  acknowledge  that  he  believed  Jefus  Chrift 
was  unmerUd  by  John  in  Jordan  Nor  lio  we  think  our 
brethren  who  plead  for  the  validity  of  fprinkling,  difbe- 


*  Vid.  Dr.  Crane'*  Sermonsk 


APPENDIX. 


lieve  it  thenifelves.  If  this  be  indeed  ati  error,  \\c  cm 
think  of  but  one  coinp.ete  remedy  for  i:  ;  and  th;it  is» 
to  alter  the  liiblo  1  Whiht  the  prclent  tr  uiil^tion  is  re- 
ceived, and  people  are  permitted  to  re.ul  and  ttiiiik  for 
t  ici-nfeUes,  it  m.iy  be  expecicd  th.it  there  u'iil  be  a  gen- 
eral convi<fVion-,  th.it  Jefus  was  plunged  in  Jordan.  AnX 
all  attemprs  to  prove,  that  this  was  to  anfwer  to  th6 
wafhing  of  the  prieih  at  the  t.>bcrnacle  door,  in  order 
to  introduce  him  into  his  prieilly  office,  will  help  tcr 
ftrengthen  this  conviction  ;  for  it  will  be  leen  th.^t  the 
Paedobaptirts  theinfehes  feel  the  dilliculty,  and  try  to 
get  rid  of  it  in  this  way. 

We  have  no  where  in  the  courfe  of  tliefe  animadver- 
tions  attempted  to  vindicate  Mr.  Merrill,  as  we  think: 
him  able,  and  believe  him  determined,  to  do  it  himleif 
but  wilh  here  to  notice  a  criticifin  made  by  Mr.  Aul^:iu 
on  John  x'i.  10,  in  his  Letters  aiidreil'ed  to  the  above 
author.  (P.  39.)  "  You  mention,"  faith  Mr.  Auftin, 
"  /ouo,  as  iignifying  the  fame  with  lap'izo,  &c.  Jf  you 
will  (continues  he)  turn  to  John  xiii.  10,  juil:  adverted 
to,  a  place  whicJ\  von  have  not  mentioned,  and  probably 
not  confidered,  you  will  hnd  evidence  (hrectly  and  cm- 
eluftvtly  againrt  this  idea.  «  Jefus  faith  unto  him,  He 
that  is  waihed  [o  lelcumenzs)  needeth  not  fave  to  wafh 
his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  On  this  Mr.  Auftin 
obferves — "  Here  the  fubje<St  fpoken  of  is  not  the  feet, 
or  hands,  or  face  •,  but  the  man,  he,  in  Greek,  o.  He  is 
waihed  when  his  teet  only  are  wafhed  ;  and  nipfnjlhai  is 
ufed,  to  exprefs  this  wadiing  of  the  feet." 

But  has  net  Mr.  Auftin  after  all  mided  the  force  of 
our  Saviour's  obfervation  .''  Did  not  jefus  intend  to  ex- 
prefs two  dlitinft  acts,  one  a  general,  and  the  other  si 
partial  waildng  one  a  b.itl\ing  of  the  vvhjle  body,  and 
tiie  other  a  walhing  of  the  feet,  and  therefore  made  ufe 
•f  two  different  wonls  ?  In  ihe  firil,  Chrift  ufes  the  pafl 

*  Patdobaptiftf,  who  write  or  fpeak  of  Mr  Merrill,  afle<fl  to  treat 
•\\m  with  much  contempt,  at  tl.ough  he  were  a  man  of  inferior  learning 
and  tiknt*.  if  thty  biliivc  i*,  i%  it  not  ailoniliiing  that  I'o  many  pen* 
Ihduld  be  i-mployed  ag-iul!  him,  and  thefe  wieidcd  ti<o  by  men  of  the 
firft  literary  emincnc  ?  If  their  reprefentations  be  true,  they  would 
gain  but  little  honour  (litiaid  they  btat  him  ;  but  would  it  not  be  infi- 
nitely difgraceful  to  be  beaten  by  him,.aftcr  thxis  defpiling  him  ? 


92i 


APPENDO. 


tenfe  He  that  is  (leloumenos)  nvifhed  needeth  mt  fave 
(nipfarthai)  to  nvafh  b'ls  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit.  He 
thiit  if  ivaPji-d,  if  this  referred  to  the  wnlhlng  of  the 
feet,  needed  not  to  waih  at  all,  according  to  Mr.  Auftin, 
for  this  exprefled  an  act  ah-eady  done. 

Leil  the  fenfe  we  have  given  above  fhoiild  be  thought 
to  be  a  mere  "  imagination  of  the  Baptifts,"*  we  fubjoin 
the  remarks  of  tlie  amiable  Dr.  Doddridge.  "  He  that 
is  nuafied  already.,  or  that  has  juft  been  bathing,  needs 
only  to  walli  his  feet,  which  may  indeed  be  eaiily  foiled 
by  the  fliorteft  walk,  and  when  that  is  done  he  is  en- 
tirely clean."f  Upon  the  above  he  has  the  following 
critical  note  : — "  He  that  h.is  been  bathing.  This  render- 
ing of  the  Word  leloumenos  is  confirmed  by  Elfner,  (Ob- 
ferv.  vol.  i.  p.  337,  338)  and  gives  as  it  were  a  compen- 
dious paraphrafe  upon  it.  Clarius  has  v/ell  obferved, 
that  as  the  apoduterion,  or  room  in  which  they  drefled 
themfelves  after  bathing,  was  different  from  that  in 
which  they  bathed,  the  feet  might  be  fo  foiled  in  walk- 
ing from  one  to  the  other,  as  to  make  it  neceffary  im- 
mediately to  wafli  them  again." 

If  Dr.  Doddridge  be  right,  it  affords  a  high  proba- 
bility that  Mr.  Merrill  may  alfo  be  right.  If,  according 
to  the  above,  two  diftinft  afts  were  intended  by  Chrift, 
then  Mr.  Auftin  has  overlooked  the  real  meaning  of  the 
paflage.^: 

On  the  whole,  we  have  one  undeniable  advantage 
over  our  opponents  in  this  difpute  about  the  mode  of 
baptifm.  Ours  correfponds  with  the  primary  fenfe  of 
the  original  word  to  baptize,  and  certainly  with  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Chriftians.  Theirs,  by  the 
confeffions  of  many  of  their  beft  writers,  is  a  departure 
from  both.  If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church,  that  this  rite  fliould  have  been  per- 

*  Dr.  Ofgood,  p.  21.  t  Expof.  vol.  ii.  p.  426. 

\  Mr.  Auftin  appears  peculiarly  unfortunate  in  the  choice  of  the  word 
nffufitn  to  reprefent  the  mode  of  applying  water  in  baptifm,  as  it  neither 
agrees  with  the  Bible,  nor  his  own  praflice.  No  one  will  deny  but  a 
man  may  be  as  thoroughly  wet  by  pouring  water  on  him,  as  by  dipping 
him  into  it ;  but  the  queftion  is,  has  Mr.  Auftin  produced  any  inftance 
where  the  Greek  verb  ekeo,  (to  affuf  or  pour)  luis  been  r'ntlcrfd 
biptizc ;  if  not,  what  argument  is  there  in  his  atta'cbing  it  ti^  ';..]:  ti5ii 
lixty  times  over 


APPENDIX. 


3^5 


formed  by  pouring  on  waier,  would  not  ^l'f:^(to  affufe,  to 
pour)  have  been  i!fed,infl:ead  of  baptizo  (to  dip;  to  plunge, 
&c.)  ?  Or  if  fprinkling  had  been  intended,  ftiould  we 
not  fometimes  have  found  ranUxo  (to  afperfe,  to  Tprinkle) 
ufed  to  exprefs  the  act  of  baptizing,  infiead  of  a  word, 
which  in  its  primary  fenfe  lignilies  immerlion  r 

Figurative  exprefliorfs  are  conftamly  reforted  to  by 
our  brethren  to  fupport  their  practice  :  fuch  as  /brink- 
ling  ntnfij  nati  ns,  fpriiikHtig  clean  ivatcr,  pouring  cut  of  the 
Spirit,  8tc.  Wirh  thefe,  v/e  have  only  to  contraft  other 
fcriptures,  which  reprefent  the  Hune  things  by  an  entire 
wafliing  or  plunging  :  furh  as  the  following.  ///  i/:cjt 
dny  thjre  Jhnll  be  n  fountain  'opened  to  the  houfe  of  DaviJy 
and  to  the  inhabitants  "J eruf idem  ^  for  ftn  and  for  unclean^ 
nefs.*  Unto  Him  that  loved  us,  and  ivafjed  us  from  our 
fins  IN  his  oivn  blood. ■\  Thefe  are  they  nvho  came  out  of  great 
tribulation,  and  have  'wtfhed  their  robes  and  made  them 
•white  IN  ihe  blood  of  the  Lanib.\  Thefe  latter  afford  juft 
as  much  evidence  of  inimerfion,  as  the  former  do  of 
fprinkling.  But  as  neither  of  them  have  any  thing  to 
do  with  the  fubje£l:,  neither  of  them  afford  any  direft 
proof  in  the  cafe. 

«  There  is  an  expreffion,"  fays  Dr.  Ofgood,  **  occur- 
ring once  or  twice  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  which 
feems  to  have  full  poffeffion  of  the  imagination  of  our 
Baptift  brethren,  and  renders  them  pofitive  that  immer- 
fion  was  the  primitive  mode  of  baptifm.  It  is  found 
Rom.  vi.  4.  «  We  are  buried  with  him  in  (by)  baptifm 
into  death.'  Again  in  Col.  ii.  12.  Burled  with  him  in 
baptifm,'  &c." 

But  what  has  "  poffefied  the  imagination"  of  fo  many 
Pxdobaptifts,  to  give  the  fame  explanation,  and  to  agree 
with  us,  that  the  apoftle,  by  the  term  buried,  alluded  to 
the  mode  of  baptiiin  by  immerfion  }^ 

A  writer  wlio  refers  to  "  fmall  things,"  on  a  fmall fi;b~ 
ject,  contained  in  a  Jvudl  bo:k,  may  affift  us  on  the 
prefent  occafion  ;  as  fmall  things  often  fliow  which  way 
the  wind  blows  H    "  If  any  of  the  learned  fathers,"  fays 

*  Z"ch.  xiii,  ;.  f  Rev.  i  5.  \  Rev.  vii  14. 

§  Vid.  Civt,  Locke,  B.irkitt,  Poole,  in  l^c 
II  Vid.  Mr  Amlcrfoii's  cftimatc  cf  imaicifii  n,  note  p.  1 1. 


826 


APPENDIX. 


this  author,  '-•  have  faid  things,  in  favour  of  haptizing  by 
immerfion,  they  may  have  been  indebted  for  it  to  their 
i^ading  Greek  authors,  more  than  to  their  critical  atten- 
tion to  the  New  Teftament."  (Note,  page  11.)  What 
an  admirable  apology  for  men,  whofe  profefTed  objeft 
was,  to  write  critical  expolhions  on  the  facred  text  ! 
'<  Hence  (continues  this  author)  we  learn  why  probably 
Calvin,  and  many  others,  made  conceflions  in  favour 
of  immerfion,  and  yet  baptized  by  affufion.  They  were 
kencft***  As  claffic  fcholars  in  the  Greek  language 
they-  made  their  concelhons,  but  as  behevers,  taught  by 
the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghoft  teachcth,  they  bap- 
tized as  we  do  "  (Page  2S.) 

Will  Mr.  Anderfoii's  brethren  thank  him  for  this 
Angular  ftatement  ?  For  the  preinifes  which  he  has 
placed  before  us  furnilh  us  with  the  following  conclu- 
jGon,  viz.  That  thofe  who  will  not  concede  the  fame 
things  which  Calvin  and  many  others  did,  that  "  to- 
baptize  is  to  immerfe,"  are  either  unacquainted  with 
the  G  ecian  clajftrs,  or  elfe  that  they  are  not  honejl ! 
But  how  does  Calvin's  honefty  appear  ?  in  his  believing 
one  thing  and  praftifing  another  i  How  Why,  in  this 
way  :  as  a  clajjic  fchcla  ,  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
Grecian  literature,  he  was  compelled  to  own,  that  "  the 
word  baptiz.j  lignifies  to  flip  ;  and  it  is  certain  (adds  he) 
that  the  manner  of  dipping  was  ufed  by  the  ancient 
church."*  "  i3ut  ns  a  believer,  taught  by  the  words 
which  the  Holy  Gholl  teacheth,"  he  could  conftrue 
baptizj  to  me.«j  pouring,  or  fprinkling,  or  any  kind  of 
wetting  !  But  where  and  how  does  the  Holy  Ghofh 
teach  that  new  born  babes  fiiould  be  fprinkled  ?  Not 
in  the  fcriptures  ;  for  manv  others,  whole  honefty  can 
no  more  be  fcrupled  than  C  ilvin's,  have  confelled,  that 
the  fcripture?  were  totally  "  filcnt nor  by  the  tefti- 
mony  of  thofe  wiio  were  cotemporary  witii  the  apoftles, 
for  there  "  is  nothing  diree^tly  on  the  fubjctli:,  either  for 
er  againft  infant  baptifm,  in  the  writings  of  the  hrft 
centui'y."  But  where  will  this  lentiment  lead  us,  that 
the  "  Holy  Ghoft  teacheth,"  that  words,  wlien  ufed  in 
the  facred  fcriptures,  have  a  meaning  totally  diiferent 

*  Inft.  Chiift.  Rflio-.  1  iv  c.  !j  §  19 


3f7 


from  what  they  have  in  common  ufe  ?  Will  it  rot  lead 
into  all  the  devious  paths  of  error  ?  Js  it  not  Oi  'igemfm 
revived  with  a  witnefs  ?  and  does  it  not  eltabliih  the 
feiitiment  of  that  mylbc  writer,  that  "  the  fvriptures 
are  of  little  ufe  to  thole  who  underftand  them  as  thev 
were  written  ?" 

Uut  thefe  men,  who  made  conccfTions  in  favour  of 
immerlion,  lays  Mr  Anderfon,  "were  honelL"  Did 
he  mean  to  fuggeft,  that  men  are  lels  honeft  at  the 
prefent  day  ?  we  Ihould  hardly  fuppofe  it  5  and  yet 
there  is  feme  ground  for  i'uch  a  fufpicion.  It  is  under- 
ftood,  that  many  plumply  deny  1*  hat  their  pious  and 
learned  anceilors  freely  acknowledged :  not  only  fo, 
but  we  find  their  works  interpolated.  In  the  firii  edi- 
tion of  Pooled  expolition  on  Jolin  iii.  I  S.  fpeaking  of 
John's  baptizing  at  Enon  becnufe  the  e  ivas  much  water 
iherd,  ti^e  writer  thus  expounds  :  «<  It  is  from  this  appa- 
rent, that  both  Chrift  and  John  baptized  bv  dipping  the 
body  in  ivnter,  elfe  they  needed  not  have  fought  places 
where  had  been  great  plenty  of  water  :  yet  it  is  probable, 
they  did  not  conitantly  dip,  from  what  we  read  of  the 
apoftles'  baptizing  in  houfes  "  Nothing  more  is  added 
upon  this  me.iibcr  of  the  text.  Although  Dr.  Collins, 
the  writer  of  this  article,  has  long  fince  been  dead,  yet 
fome  facrilegious  hand  has  dared  to  alter  this  in  a  late 
edition,  printed  at  Edinburgii  1801,  in  the  following 
manner  :  »'  It  is  from  thi^  apparent,  fay  fome"  &c. 
«*  Others  fay  it  is  not  apparent,'  &c.  ;  and  leveral  argu- 
ments are  here  urged,  to  difprove  what  ilands  decidedly 
in  favour  of  immerlion  in  the  firft  edition.  This  artful 
interpolation  we  conlider  as  a  real  impofuion  upon  the 
public  :  for  in  this  way  any  of  the  ancietjt  writers  may 
be  made  to  fay  things  wiiich  they  never  laid,  and  deny 
things  which  they  freely  acknowledged.  If  fuch  frauJs 
are  allowed  to  be  pradifed,  all  confidence  in  the  tefti- 
mony  of  thofe  who  have  gone  before  us  will  be  de- 
ftroyed. 

The  oppofers  of  immerfion  make  ufe  of  the  fame 
kind  of  arguments  to  diiparage  this  practice,  which  tiie 
enemies  of  revt  latiou  employ  againll  Chriltianity  geo- 
eraily  ;  we  mean,  by  arguing  from  the  abufe.  of  it. 
One  would  think,  by  fome  of  their  reprefentations,  that 


82S 


APrENDIX. 


our  baptifmal  occafions  were  a  fcene  of  riot  and  confu* 
fion  ;  the  truth  is  exaftly  the  reverfe  of  this ;  they  are 
ufually  feafons  of  peculiar  folemnlty.  We  have  fre- 
Cj^-ient  and  repeated  inftanccs  of  perfons'  being  ftrutk 
under  conviction,  while  witneffing  the  due  adminillra- 
tion  of  this  impreffive  inftitute.  But  were  the  ridicule 
and  oppofition  much  greater  than  what  we  hare  at  any 
time  experienced,  we  ihould  fuppofe  our  brethren  would 
be  the  laft  perfons  in  the  world  to  complain.  Fiom 
whom  does  this  oppofition  and  ridicule  proceed  ?  Surely 
riot  from  the  Baptirt^  themfelves,  nor  from  any  who  are 

friendly  to  ihem  ;  but  from  we  will  not  fay 

whom,  though  they  are  often  well  known. 

It  muft  be  peculiarly  grateful  to  the  feelings  of  a  , 
p'ous  Baptift,  when  reproached  for  following  the  exani- 
ple  of  his  Lord  and  Mafter,  that  immerfion,  after  fuf« 
taining  every  oppoiition  wliich  learned  ingenuity  can 
make,  ftill  maintains  its  indifputable  claim,  of  being 
apoftolic  baptiiin.  Nor  will  it  give  him  the  leaft  unea- 
linefs,  that  his  Psedobaptift  brethren  can  make  out  a 
bare  probabilitj^  that  water  might  pojjibly  have  been  ap- 
plied in  fome  extreaie  cafes  otherways.  From  the  evi- 
dence which  the  facred  fcriptures,  ecclefiaftical  hiftory, 
«nd  ihe  teftimony  of  the  moft  pious  and  learned  of  tlie 
Piedobapilfts  exhibit,  that  immerfion  was  the  conftant 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  he  will  feel  a  fafety  in 
following  their  example  ;  he  will  reft  confident,  that 
there  cannot  be  the  fame  degree  of  evidence  in  favour 
of  any  other  mode.  This,  Pa:dobaptifts  themfelves  ac- 
knowledge to  be  valid  ;  all  others  are  doubtful. 

Though  conlidertd  by  our  opponents  as  a  **  little 
modern  feft,"  *  if  we  have  the  truth  on  our  fide  we 
need  not  fear.  "  They  have  ever  been  (faith  Mr.  Wor- 
cefter)  but  a  very  fmall  proportion  of  the  Chriftian 
world.  I  do  not  mean  (faith  he)  that  they  have  been 
but  a  fmall  proportion  of  the  nominally  Chriftian  world, 
but  a  very  fmall  proportion  of  the  true  ai  d  faithful  pro- 
feffing  people  of  God."  This  is  to  us  another  of  the 
mylterious  unintelligible  ftatemcnts  made  by  this  author. 
It  would  leem  by  tiiis,  that  the  Baptifts  have  fome  time 

•  Dr.  Ofgood,  page  41,  and  Mr.  Worc.ftcr,  page  66. 


or  other  made  a  large  proportion  of  the  profelTing 
Chriftlan  world.  But  as  a  drawback  upon  this,  ihey 
had  a  niuch  larger  proportion  of  mm'iital  profeflbrs  than 
fell  to  the  Piiare  of  other  denominations.  If  it  be  a 
f  that  we  h.^ve  a  greater  proportion  of  tioviituil  pro- 
fefibrs  than  Pa^dobaptifis,  we  are  extremely  puzzled  to 
account  for  it.  If  we  baptized  infants,  and  iniifted  that 
they  WL-re  all  difciples^  although  they  had  never  learned  a 
word  concerning  Jefus  Chrift,  nor  was  it  certain  that 
they  ever  would  :  or  if  we  admitted  members  into  our 
churches  without  evidence  of  their  having  experienced 
a  moral  change,  and  in  many  inftances,  without  aflcing 
them  a  fingle  queftion  concerning  their  religious  exer- 
cifei :  or  if  a  confiderable  proportion  of  our  minifters 
were  ordained  without  any  examination  refpecting  their 
particular  ientiments  or  experimental  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  and  who  of  courfe  would  be  interefted  in  keeping 
their  hearers  prejudiced  againft  the  fanaticifm  of  expe- 
rimental religion  ;  then  we  might  reafonably  conclude 
that  we  had  a  larger  proportion  of  nominal  profeflbrs 
than  thofe  churches  who  admit  only  fuch  as  give  a 
fatiifaftory  n-dfoti  of  ihe  hope  that  is  in  them. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  we  neither  make  difciples,  admit 
members,  nor  orJain  minifters,  in  this  way  ;  yet,  after  all 
our  care  in  examining  them  according  to  the  bep  light  lue 
haw,  we  are  very  liable  to  err.  Our  brethren,  it  would 
feem,  are  not  fo  much  expofed  ;  for,  if  they  have  not 
Overrated  them.felves,  "  the  light  of  ihe  truth  has  been 
a  hundred,  perhaps  a  thousand  fold  greater,  in  the 
Paedobaptift  churches  than  in  the  Baptift."*  Mirabile 
di£iu  !  What  an  amazing  difference  !  Who  does  not 
pity  the  poor  benighted  Baptifts  ?  Alfo  all  the  piety, 
learning,  and  talents,  belonging  to  the  Chriftian  world, 
our  brethren  claim,  almofi:  exclufively  for  themfelvcs.-j- 
For  all  this  vaft  fuperiority,  we  moft  refpedtfuUy  ten- 
der them  "  the  homage  of  our  high  confidcraticn 
but  beg  them  in  future,  not  to  overwiielm  ys  with  I'uch 
arguments  as  thefe. 

Mr.  Anderfon,  in  his  zeal  to  make  a  fair  fjow  of  em- 
inent men  in  the  Paedobaptift  churches,  has  fomehow 

•  Mr.  Andcrfc/n'i  Leu.  p.  14.    -i  Vid.  Mr.  Worccfltr's  Difc.  p.  6S. 
F  f 


330 


.^J:'PENDIX. 


flipped  in  among  them  the  author  of  the  PiLGRiAfs 
Progress.*  Bunyan,  though  a  Baptift,  we  fuppofe  it 
will  ,be  allowed  was  one  of  the  good  fort,  for  he  held 
to  open  communion.  This  being  the  cafe,  how  came 
the  Paedobaptifts  to  perfecute  and  imprifon  him  ?  Was 
it  for  any  immoral  conduft  that  he  was  configned  to  a 
loathfome  jail  twelve  years  and  a  half?  The  reader, 
perhaps,  could  judge  better,  if  he  Avere  to  know  the 
crime  that  was  laid  to  his  charge.  The  bill  of  indict- 
ment preferred  againft  him  runs  tlms  :  "  Jdfi  Bunyan 
— hath  cievilipjly  abjahied  from  coming  to  church,  to  hear 
divine  fervice  ;  and  is  a  common  upholder  of  feveral  U7i- 
laivful  mtdings  and  conventiclesl  to  the  diflurhance  and  dif- 
trallion  of  the  good  fuhje£ls  of  this  kingdom,  contrary  to  the 
laius  of  our  fovereign  lord  the  king,*  For  thus  daring 
to  preach  the  gofpel,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  a  tyran- 
nical hierarchy,  this  good  man  was  fent  to  prifon  for.' 
twelve  years  and  fix  months  ! 

It  has  often  been  urged,  as  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  that  it  made 
its  way  at  fir  ft  againft  the  learning,  power  and  policy  of 
the  world,  by  the  inftrumentality  of  a  few  illiterate 
ffhermen  !  Does  not  this  argument  caft  its  full  weight 
into  the  fcale,  in  favour  of  our  diftinguifliing  fen- 
timents,  if  the  obfervations  of  our  brethren  refpeCling 
us  be  juft  ?  Let  the  candid  mind  decide.  May  the 
Lord  preferve  us  from  becoming  vain  by  profperity. 
We  have  great  reafon  to  adore  our  Saviour  Gnd,  .that 
our  duty  is  made  fo  plain  in  his  bleffed  word  ;  that  we 
have  fuch  abundant  proof  that  we  are  treading  in  the  foot- 
Jleps  of  the  flock,  and  are  followers  of  them  who  through 
faith  and  patience  are  gone  to  inherit  the  promifes. 

Notwithftanding  our  pradlice  of  immerfion,  which 
«  is  deemed  indecorous  by  moft  people  accuftomed  to 
poliflied  manners,"  and  "  denial  of  the  extei-nal  rite  of 
baptifni  to  the  infant  feed  of  believers yet,  if  it  were 
not  for  our  "  antichriftian  pra£lice  of  clofe  commu- 
nion," it  feems  that  our  brethren  could  receive  and  treat 
us  as  Chriftians.  We  therefore  add  a  few  obfervations 
on  free  communion  before  we  clofe. 


•  Lett.  p.  aj.  t  Notes  on  Claude,  vol.  ii.  p,  228. 


APPENDIX. 


S31 


SECTION  VIII. 

The  Principles  of  Open  Communion  examined — The  Subje£l 
concluded. 

Is  the  communion  for  which  our  brethren  plead,  lim- 
ited, or  unlimited  ?  If  limited,  we  wifli  to  be  inform- 
ed what  ar«-  its  boundaries.  If  unlimited,  then  it  muft, 
we  conceive,  embrace  all  who  bear  the  Chri/tian  name. 
« In  thefe  United  States  (faith  a  refpedlable  writer) 
there  are  probably  more  than  fix  millions  of  people 
ivearing  the  Chrijllan  name."*  Is  open  communion 
charitable  enough  to  embrace  all  thefe  ?  No,  furely  ; 
the  thought  is  too  extravagant  to  be  ferioufly  entertain- 
ed. A  conliderable  proportion  of  thefe,  have  no  other 
connexion  with  Chriftianity,  than  only  as  it  is  the  re- 
ligion of  the  country  in  which  they  happened  to  be 
born.  However,  they  are  all  brought  forward,  and 
each  counts  one  againft  the  Baptifts.f 

But  to  fay  no  more  of  this.  If  we  open  our  doors 
for  free  communion,  muft  we  not,,  to  aft  confiftently, 
receive  all  whofe  right  of  memberflnp  can  be  fup- 
ported  ?  If  fo,  muft  we  not  commune  with  all  the  bap- 
'  tized  children  which  belong  to  PiedobaptiR*  congrega- 
tions ?  Our  brethren  place  the  right  of  their  infants 
on  the  fame  footing  with  their  own  •,  therefore,  if  their 
argument  be  good,  if  we  receive  them,  we  muft  re- 
ceive their  children  alfo.  Should  we  admit  the  be- 
lieving parents,  and  refufe  their  baptized  children, 
might  they  not  ftill  continue  the  dreadful  charge,  that 
we  "  deny  God's  everlafting  covenant  of  fuperabound- 
ing  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inheritance  and 
privileges"  of  their  infant  feed  ?  We  fee  nothing  to 
forbid.  But  it  may  be  faid,  this  is  more  than  they 
praftife  themfelves  ;  and  therefore,  it  would  not  be 
expefted  of  the  Baptifts.  We  grant  that  they  do  not 
praftife  it ;  and  on  that  account  we  think  them  ex- 
tremely inconfiftent.  In  contending  with  us,  they 
ftrenuoufly  infift  upon  the  right  of  their  infants  to 
memberfliip,  and  yet  themfelves  deny  them  the  moft 


♦  Dr.  OfgocdjDifc.  p  41.       f  Ibid. 


1)38 


APPENDIX. 


eflcntial  privileges  which  every  member  has  a  right  t© 
enjoy  ! 

But  n)ould  we  give  up  this  idea,  arid  narrow  the 
field  of  free  communion,  fo  as  to  include  onlv  fuch 
as  are  a^lual  members  of  Pa;dobaptil"t  churches  ;  we 
ftould  ftill  wifli  to  inquire,  whether  it  would  be  ex- 
peiSted,  that  we  fhould  commune  with  all  of  them, 
whether  Cahinifts,  Arminians,  Semi-Arians,  Socinians, 
or  Unitarians  ?  If  not,  where  are  we  to  fix  the  difcrim- 
inating  line  ?  Do  the  ftricl  Calviniftic  or  Hopkinfian 
churches  commune  with  thofe  whom  thcv  confider  as 
Arminians,  or  Semi-Arians  ?  If  not,  do  they  not  prac- 
tile  clofe  communion  as  well  as  the  Baptifts  ?  Do 
thofe  churches  which  require  of  erery  peribn  in  order 
to  memberfiiip,  either  a  verbal  or  written  declaration 
of  their  experience  of  a  work  of  grace  upon  their 
hearts,  hold  communion  tvith  t]\ofe  churches  which 
require  no  fuch  experience,  and  which  believe  nothing 
in  fuch  a  work  ?  If  they  do  not,  are  they  not  incon- 
iiftent  to  blame  us  for  our  particular  communion  ?  If 
thev  do,  are  they  not  ftill  more  inconfiftent  ? 

With  a  view  to  reheve  thefe  difficulties,  fome  have 
ftated  the  plan  of  free  communion  in  this  way  : — That 
we  fhould  hold  communion  with  all  fuch,  and  with  fuch 
only,  as  we  confcientioufly  believe  to  be  real  Chriftians  ; 
God's  own  dear  children  by  the  Spirit  of  adoption  and 
a  living  faith.  This  is  indeed  by  far  the  moft  con- 
fiftent  plan  j  but  even  this  is  attended  with  fome  fe- 
xious  difficuhies.  It  is  believed  that  in  all  Chriftian 
communities  there  may  be  found  fome  of  the  above 
defcription.  There  ivere  even  ir:  Snrdis  a  few  natms 
ivhich  had  not  difiled  their  grnnetits,  though  living  in  a 
church  which  had  moft  awfully  apoftatized  from  the 
truth.  On  this  principle  we  might  freely  commune 
with  one  member,  and  rejeft  another  at  the  fam.e  time, 
whole  Ihmding  was  equally  good  in  the  church  to 
which  they  belonged.  But  what  heart-burning  and 
confufion  this  would  produce  ;  and  yet  it  might  be  un- 
avoidable in  many  cafes. 

The  faft  is,  we  conceive,  that  there  is  but  one  con- 
fiftent  method,  by  which  oceafional  communion  can  be 
pra£tifed  between  the  members  of  fifter  churches.  This 


APPENDIX. 


333 


is  not  upon  the  principle  of  individual,  but  of  church 
ftUoivJlnp.  If  we  could  receive  one  member  of  a  church, 
by  the  fame  rule  we  could  receive  every  member  of 
the  fame  church.  We  do  not  know  the  precife  order 
in  which  our  Pjedobaptift  brethren  proceed  ;  but  think 
it  the  general  pradice  in  our  churches,  that  when  a 
brother,  w^ho  is  a  ftranger,  requefts  occafional  com- 
munion, if  by  a  certificate  (or  otherwife)  he  can  fatisfy 
us,  that  he  is  a  member  in  regular  {landing,  in  any 
church  of  the  fame  faith  and  order  with  ourfelves,  he  is 
readily  admitted.  The  only  evidence  which  we  have 
of  the  man  in  this  cafe  is,  from  the  character  of  the 
church  of  which  he  is  a  member.  We  imagine  the 
practice  of  our  brethren  is  not  very  diffimilar. 

There  are  fome  P^edobaptifl  churches  which  appear 
to  be  built  of  lively  Jlones,  and  where  the  truths  of  the 
gofpel  in  general  are  preached,  and  a  good  degree  of 
difcipline  maintained.  With  thefe  we  have  no  material 
difficulty,  excepting  in  the  article  of  baptifm.  We 
could  mofi:  cheerfully  unite  with  them  in  every  aft  of 
Chriftian  duty,  which  would  not  in  our  view  contravene 
fome  other  part  of  the  revealed  will  of  Chrift.  In  the 
article  of  communion,  we  feel  bound  to  treat  them  juft 
as  we  do  our  own  members,  after  they  are  received  in- 
to our  fellowlhip,  but  not  baptized.  Should  we  treat 
them  as  baptized  perfons,  would  they  not  with  great 
propriety  charge  us  with  our  inconfiftency 

There  are  other  churches,  with  which  we  freely  ac- 
knowledge we  could  not  commune,  if  we  had  no  ob- 
jeftions  to  their  baptifm.  It  is  not  becaufe  we  do  not 
think  them  refpeftable  members  of  fociety,  but  becaufe 
we  have  no  evidence  that  they  are  real  Chriftians.  We 
have  no  doubt  but  in  thefe  communities,  there  may  be 
fome  fincer*  believers  ;  but  where  a  change  of  heart  is 
not  conlidered  as  a  necefl'ary  qualification  for  member- 
fliip,  there  is  always  a  high  probability,  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  members  are  unacquainted  with  the 
truth,  as  it  is  in  Jefus.  On  the  whole,  we  fee  no  way 
that  looks  more  confiftent  than  our  prefent  practice. 
From  all  the  evidence  which  has  been  fet  before  us, 
we  cannot  bring  ourfelves  to  believe  that  any  thing  is 


APPENDIX^ 


baptifm  fhort  of  immerfion.  Nor  can  we  fee  our  way 
clear  to  invite  any  to  the  communion  table  until  they 
have  been  baptized. 

But  why  is  it  thought  fo  important,  that  different 
denominations  fliould  be  agreed  in  the  article  of  table- 
communionj  more  than  in  other  things  ?  Is  it  any  more 
eflentlal  to  falvation,  that  we  commune  together  at  the 
Lord's  table,  than  that  we  fliould  be  rightly  baptized  ? 
For  ourfelves,  we  believe  neither  of  them  effential  to- 
falvation.  We  are  hence  unable  to  difcern,  why  our 
refufing  to  admit  the  Psedobaptifts  to  communicate 
with  us,  fhould  injure  their  churches,  any  more  than 
their  not  admitting  us  fliould  injure  our's. 

Our  brethren  charge  us  with  laying  an  undue  ftrefs 
upon  baptifm  ;  at  leaft  upon  a  particular  mode  of  it. 
But  their  arguments  have  been  infufficient  to  produce 
conviftion.  On  the  other  hand,  we  think  they  lay  an 
undue  ftrefs  on  our  communicating  together  at  the  Lord's 
table.  Ritual  duties,  they  have  conftantly  inflfted, 
were  to  be  claffed  among  the  non-ejpntials  of  religion. 
How  then  fhall  we  reconcile  the  conduct  of  thofe  min- 
ifters  and  churches,  who  profefs  t©  hold  the  doctrine 
of  fovereign  difcriminating  grace,  and  yet  unite  with 
others,  who  hold  every  grade  of  doftrine,  down  to  So- 
ctnianifniy  merely  becaufe  they  are  agreed  in  the  article 
of  infant  baptifm?  At  the  fame  time,  they  reject  all 
kind  of  connexion  with  their  Baptift  brethren,  who 
believe  and  preach  the  fame  important  truths  which 
they  profefs  to  believe.  Nay,  do  they  not  in  fome 
inftances,  warn  their  people  to  fhun  them  as  they 
would  the  peftilence  ? 

Our  pulpits  have  been  generally  open  to  all  evangelic 
minifters,  whether  they  have  been  buried  in  baptifm,  or 
only  fprinkled-,.  and  we  rather  think. they  will  ftill  re- 
main fo.  Some  of  our  brethren,  in  return,  invite  us 
into  their's  ;  while  ^others  very  confcientioufly  refufe, 
afligning  as  a  reafon,  their  fears,  that  it  would  have  a. 
tendency  to  make  a  divilion  among  their  people.  Did 
•we  differ  in  points  of  do£trine,  the  objeftion  would  have 
weight,  but  now  it  is  of  little  force.  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  an  inftance  can  be  named,  in  which  any  have 


APPENDIX. 


preached  upon  their  diftinguilliing  fentiments,  when 
in  each  others'  pulpits.  Where  then  is  the  mighty- 
danger  ?  No  where  but  hi  imagination.  We  have 
Mever  apprehended  any  danger,  from  their  preaching 
the  truth  to  our  people. 

Nor  are  we  conicious  of  feeling,  or  difplaying,  that 
rage  for  profelyting,  which  our  opponents  charge  us 
•with.  "  Eadh  individual,  (fays  Dr.  Oi'good)  whom  they 
can  perfuade  to  renounce  Ins  former  baptifm,,  by  being 
thus  baptized  over  again,  they  confider  as  being  recov- 
ered from  a  firate  cf  heathcnifm."  (P:1.0.)  We  think, 
the  Doctor  would  have  fpoken  more  correclly,  If  he  had 
faid,  "  They  baptize  all  fuch  as  we  cannot  perfuade xo  keep 
out  of  the  water."  Whenever  a  perfon  renounces  P;cdc- 
baptifm,  and  comes  over  to  t'-ce  Baptil^s,  it  is  immediately 
laid,  "  Somebody  has  been  perjuadmg  him."  So  far  is 
this  from  being  true  generally, that  we  have  reafon  to  fear 
that  the  dread  of  being  accufed  of  profelyting,  has,  in 
too  many  Infhinces,  kept  us  from  fully  declaring  this  part 
of.the  couiifel  of  God.  We  appeal  to  Pafdobaptift  min- 
ifters  to  fay,  whether  they  have  not,  (many  of  them  at 
leaft)  had  repeatedly  to  ufe  all  the  arts  of  perfuafton  to 
keep  their  people  from  being  Baptifts  ?  If  there  be 
nothing  In  the  Bible  which  looks  with  a  favourable  af- 
pe<St  upon  the  Baptlfr  fcntiment,  we  alk,  how  it  happens 
that  fo  many  P3cdobapi;ift  minifters  have  confeiTed,  that 
at  fome  former  period  of  their  lives,  (though  through 
mercy  they  are  now  well  eftabllHied)  they  had  ftrong 
doubts  refpedtlng  their  infant  baptifm  What  but  the 
bible  perfuaded  Mr.  Dunfter,  the  firft  Prefident  of  Har- 
vard Univerfity,  to  embrace  the  Baptift  fentiments  ?. 
Surely  he  could  not  have  been  perfuaded  by,  the  Baptifts  •,. 
for  at  this  time  they  were  fcarcely  allowed  to  breathe 
the  air  of  Maflachufetts.  It  is  faid,  "  he  thought  hlm-s- 
felf  under  obligation,  to  bear  his  teftimony  In  fome  fer-- 
mons,  agalnft  the  adminlftration  of  baptifm  to  any  In- 
fants whatfoevcr."*  What  his  temerity  cort  him,  the 
author  of  the  Hiftory  of  MaiTachufelts  will  Inform  us. 
Speaking  of  the  rife  of  AmlpiEdobaptifm  in  the  prov- 
ince, he  fays,  "  Mr.  Dunfter,  the  Prefident  of  the  Col- 


•  Mitchcl'*  Life,  p.  67,  ia  Backus. 


336 


APPENDIX. 


lege,  made  profefHon  of  it,  and  was  forced  to  quit  his 
prelidentihip."  To  which  he  adds,  "  Mr.  Chauncy,  his 
fucceffor,  hi'ld  Immerfioii  necejfary^  but  was  content  that 
the  ordinance  ihould  be  adminiftered  to  infants,  pro- 
vided it  was  done  in  that  way."  He  further  remarks, 
that  "  in  Mr.  Hooker's  time,  foon  after  the  year  1(540, 
it  appears  by  his  letters,  that  many  were  inclmeJ  thai  way, 
and  he  exprelTes  his  apprehenfions,  tliat  the  number 
would  increafe."*  Whether  his  apprehenfions  were 
excited  by  a  prophetic  fpirit,  we  pretend  not  to  fay  ; 
but  they  appear  to  have  been  well  founded.  We  wifh, 
in  future,  vvhenever  the  Tons  of  Harvard  zt&  difpofed 
to  treat  the  advocates  of  immerfion  as  being  deftitute 
of  literary  patronage,  they  may  remember,  that  their 
two  firft  Prefidents  underiiood  baptifm,  as  we  do,  to 
mean  immersiom. 

The  preceding  remarks  contain  forae  of  our  difficul- 
ties refpetSting  the  plan  of  free  communion.  To  us,  the 
ftanding  of  many  churches  at  the  prefent  day,  appears 
to  be  fimilar  to  thofe  of  Afia,  to  which  John  was  dire£t- 
ed  to  write.  Although  they  were  not  difowned  of 
God,  yet  the  moft  of  them  were  reproved  for  having 
departed  from  their  original  purity. 

There  are  many  individuals  in  the  different  commu- 
nities with  whom  we  could  moft  cheerfully  communi- 
cate at  the  Lord's  table,  did  we  believe  them  to  be  bap- 
tized. But  their  arguments  in  favour  of  their  practice 
do  not  fatisfy  us,  and  we  cannot  fee  how  they  can  fatisfy 
them.  To  acknowledge  that  the  fcriptures  are  our  "  c«- 
ly  rule  of  faith  and  praclice"  and  then  proceed  to  argue 
from,  their  ftUtice,  looks  to  us  as  inconfiftent,  as  to  admit 
the  teftimony  of  the  guard,  who  reported  that  the  dif- 
ciples  of  Jefus  ftole  him  away  while  they  flept. 

When  the  mode  of  our  obedience  to  a  politive  infli- 
tute,  (Inftead  of  better  ground)  reforts  to  this,  that 
•«  there  is  abfolutely  no  text  or  fentence  in  the  Bible 
forbidding  it  :"f  or,  that  "  there  is  nothing  in  the 
fcriptures  agalnft  it  :"f  it  eftabliflies  to  us  one  point,' 
and  one-  only,  that  is,  that  the  caufe  which  requires  it 

*  Hutch,  Hift.  Maff.  p.  129. 
f  Dr.  or^ood,  p.  49.       Mr.  Worcefter,  p.  69. 


APPENDIX. 


337 


labours  exceedingly.  The  ve;iclcr  will  contrnft  the  fol- 
lowing obfervatioiis  with  the  above. 

"  Religion,  (faid  the  excellent  Claude)  in  all  its  parts, 
ought  to  proceed  from  God  :  for  as  he  has  not  left  it 
to  the  choice  of  man  to  have  or  not  have  a  religion  ; 
fo  neither  has  he  left  it  to  his  f^mc^  to  invent  fuch  a  wor- 
fhip  as  he  choofes."*  An  old  Engliih  divine  fays, 
"  We  muft  have  God's  warrant  for  God's  worfliip.  3t. 
Paul  proves,  that  the  tribe  of  Judah  had  nothing  to  do 
with  Aaron's  priefthood,  from  the  ftlence  of  Moles  ;  of 
ivhich  tribe  M-jfes  fprihe  miking  concerning  priejlhood." 
He  reafons  as  follows  :  "God  employed  Mofes  to  re- 
Teal  his  will  to  the  Jews.  Mofes  fpakc  nothing  of  Ju- 
dah's  priellhood.  Therefore  God  would  not  have 
that  tribe  officiate  in  the  prieft's  ofiice.  What  God 
would  have  his  church  practife,  lince  the  abolition  of 
Judaifm,  he  has  revealed  by  Chrift  and  his  apoftles. 
The  apolHes  have  regijlcrcd  ihrfe  appointment!  in  thefcrip^ 
turej"\  It  hence  appears,  that  St.  Paul  confidered  the 
ftlence  of  the  fcriptures,  in  a  light  exaftly  oppofite  to 
what  our  brethren  do.  He  argued  from  it,  that  what 
was  not  written  was  implicitly  forbidden.  They  argue> 
that  what  is  not  forbidden,  may  lawfully  be  pradHfed. 

We  oppofe  infant  baptifm  becaufe  we  do  not  believe 
it  to  be  divine.  If  it  be  an  apoftolic  tradition,  it  is  an 
unwritten  one.  We  baptize  believers,  becaufe  we  have 
politive  fcripture  proof  that  they  were  baptized  in  the 
days  of  Chrift  and  the  apoftles.  We  pradlife  immer- 
fion,  becaufe  to  us  it  appears  exceedingly  plain  from 
the  fcriptures  that  John  the  Baptift,  who  was  fcnt 
from  God  to  introduce  tliis  now  difpcnfition,  baptized 
IN  Jordan  ;  and  in  Enon  becaufe  there  was  much  ivater. 
'i'he  much  water  is  mentioned,  as  necelHiry  to  his  bap- 
tizing, and  to  nothing  elfe.  V/ e  alio  believe  that  Jefus 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  was  plunged  in  Jordan.  We  fur- 
ther believe  that  this  was  the  only  way  in  which  the 
apoftles  received  and  adminiftered  the  ordinance. 

Jefus  firft  wade  d'rfciples,  and  then  baptized  them. 
The  commiflion  which  he  gave  to  teach  and  baptize, 
correfponds  with  his  own  praiLlice.    "  The  order  runs 

*■  Difc.  on  a  Ser.  vol.  i.  p.  ai6. 
■(•  Gouge  on  the  riith.  of  Hebrews. 


338 


APPENDIX. 


thus,  Teach  al!  tiatious  baptizing  them.  The  thing  fpeaks- 
for  itfelf  5  the  ftyle  is  popular  ;  the  fenfe  plain  :  it  muft 
mean  either — baptize  whole  nations,  or  fuch  of  all  na- 
tions aj  receive  your  inftruftions,  and  defire  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  fn-ft  is  too  grofs  to  be  admitted,  becaufe 
it  cannot  be  effected  without  force  ;  and  the  groflhefs 
of  the  one  inftantly  turns  the  mind  to  the  other,  the- 
plain  and  true  fenfe. ,  In  the  principles  of  the  kingdom 
of  Chrift  there  is  neither  fraud  nor  force  ;  nor  is  it  fuit- 
able  to  the  dignity  of  the  Lord  Jisfus  Chrift,  to  take 
one  man  by  coiivlBion,  and  his  ten  children  by  furprifeT* 
Bifhop  Beveridge,  with  many  others,  have  tried  to 
make  out,  that  the  Greek  word  [matheteufate)  to  teach, 
or  make  difciples,  would  admit  of  making  them  without 
teaching.  "But  I  believe  (faid  a  very  correct  writer) 
it  would  pnzzle  a  whole  conclave  of  Jeiuits,  to  make  a 
ilifciple  of  Chrift,  or  z  Chri/Iian,  without  ieackivg."  Col- 
ledling  our  ideas  of  a  difaph  from  the  New  Teftament, 
and  we  are  at  once  led  to  a  believer  in  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift.  Thefe  difciples  all  defire  the  fiticere  milk  of  the 
WORD :  hvit  thjjfe  "little  difciples"  defire  no  higher 
nourifliment  than  what  a  good  healthy  nivfe  can  afford 
them.  But  it  is  faid,  "  they  are  entered  into  Chrift's 
fchool,  and  deftined  to  learn."f  Indeed  ! — But  do  men 
enter  their  children  as  fcholars  as  foon  as  they  are  born, 
becaufe  they  intend  to  fend  them  to  fchool,  fhould  they, 
live  to  be  four  or  five  years  eld  ?  A  man  may  be  fup- 
pofed  to  form  an  intention,  foon  after  the  birth  of  a  fon, 
to  bring  him  up  at  college  ;  but  would  he  not  be  thought 
a  madman,  fliould  he  attempt  to  enter  him  as  foon  as  he 
was  born,  or  before  he  was  fitted,  or  was  even  capable 
of  receiving  the  loweft  degree  of  inftruction  ?.  We  will, 
only  fay,  nve  have  not  fo  learned  Chri/l. 

Notwithftanding  we  cppofe  with  fome  degree  of  zeal 
what  v/e  -look  upon  to  be  error  ir)  our  brethren,  yet.  we 
rejoice  whenever  we  hear  or  fee  the  work  of  God 
among  them-  Concerned  as  we  are,  that  the  ordi- 
nances fliould  be  kept  pure,  as  they  were  delivered  by 
the  apoftles,  it  is  ftill  a  minor  confideration.  Our  firft 
xnd  great  concern  is,  that  men  be  made  Chriftians. 


•  Roliinfons 


t  Dr.  Ofgood's  Difc.  p.  7i. 


APPENDIX. 


339 


%V'e  have  no  Idea  that  baptifm  in  any  mode  will  make 
Chriftians,  either  of  infants  or  adult*.* 

We  baptize  fuch  as  have  been  fprinkled  in  their 
infancy,  when  they  defire  it  of  us,  provided  they  can 
fatisfy  us  that  they  are  fit  fubje<Sts ;  becanfe  we  think 
with  Teriullfan,  "  that  he  that  is  not  rightly  baptized, 
is  doubtlefs  not  baptized  at  all."  Such  as  have  been 
baptized,  that  is,  Inimerfod,  upon  a  .profeflion  of  faith, 
by  Pxdobaptifls,  we  do  not  re-baptize  :  but  if  they  have 
only  been  fprinkled,  though  adults,  when  they  come 
over  to  us,  we  baptize  them.f  Infant  baptifm  to  us  is 
defeflive,  both  in  the  fubjeci  and  7iiodr,  and  has  a  ten- 
dency to  defeat  the  defign  of  the  ordinance,  which  was 
intended  to  be  a  fignificant  fign  of  faith  in  Chrift. 

If  baptizing  fuch  as  have  not  been  rightly  baptized 
"be  anabaptifm.,  then  there  were  hundreds  and  thoufands 
long  before  the  madmen  of  Munfter  (as  their  enemies 
are  pleafed  to  call  them)  in  1522.  Befides  many  indi- 
viduals from  Tertullian  down  to  the  Reformation,  were 
there  not  large  fects,  fuch  as  the  Donatifts,  in  the  fourth 
century,  the  Paulicians,  in  the  feventh,  eighth  and 
ninth,  the  Waldenfes  in  the  eleventh,  who  baptized 
fuch  as  came  over  to  them  from  other  fedls  .''  Dr. 
Mofheim  allows,  that  "  the  origin  of  the  {&€t  is  hid  in 

*  The  quedion  was  once  aflced  one  of  the  Paulianifts  (an  ancient 
.fe(ft,)  "  Why  do  you  not  haptizc  your  fon,  to  expel  the  devil  out  of 
•  Tiira  ?  Oh,  anfwcrcd  he,  no  water  can  waft  the  devil  out  of  the  child. 
Monfter !  faid  ti  e  other,  you  deny  baptifm  and  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Gkall."    Monftrous  abfurdity  ! 

t  Mr.  Worcefier  feettis  to  be  much  difturbed  at  the  proceedings  of 
the  Baptills  at  Sedgwick,  for  admioiftering  baptifm,  forming  a  church, 
&c. ,  "  1  hus  (fays  he)  in  the  face  of  the  world,  was  the  great  body  of 
our  churches  and  minifters,  &c.  deitbcrattly  fet  at  nought.  'J  his  has 
been  widely,  and  with  great  exultation,  fpread  abroad  by  the  Anti- 
pjfcdobaptiftt."  And  would  not  the  Pazdobaptifts  "  exult"  a  little,  if  a 
Baptifl  rainifter,  his  wife,  three  deacons,  and  eighty  others,  ftould  all 
come  over  to  them  at  once  ?  Hjs  not  the  defeftion  of  Mr.  Kdwards 
from  our  fcntimerts,  been  a  theme  of  as  much  "  exultation  "  among 
them  ?  Hss  not  a  folitary  inftance  of  a  Afrs.  Jackfon,  in  the  State  of 
Vermont,  been  conveyed  to  Bofton,  and  attached  to  fcveral  publications, 
and  vaft  pains  taken  to  fpread  it  ?  Not  only  fo,  buc  has  not  an  inftance 
of  one,  whu  by  the  "  overwhelming  attentions  of  the  Baptifts,"  haa  liic 
U  have  teen  ene,  but  mercifully  efcaped,  been  widely  proclaimed  abroad? 
Vid.  the  lucubrations  of  a  fetticoot  prieji,  over  the  fienature  of  LroiAi 
iH  ttc  Mair.  MiiT.  Mag. 


340 


APPENDIX. 


the  remoteft  depths  of  antiquity  that  they  "  O.irted 
up  all  of  a  fudden  in  feveral  countries,  at  the  lame  point 
of  time,  under  different  .leaders,  at  the  vny  period  when 
the  firft  conteft  of  the  reformers  with  the  Roman  pon- 
tiffs drew  the  attention  of  the  world,"  &c. 

But  -having  far  exceeded  our  propofed  limits,  we 
halten  to  cloie  the  fubjeft  with  a  few  words  of  addrcfs. 


To  the  Pacdobaptiflis. 

I?ELOViD  Brethren- — When  you  caft  your  eyes  upon  the  Baptift 
churches,  you  behoid  a  people  ffread  abroad,  who  h.ive  riftn  fr<.m  a 
handful  to  a  great  multitutie  Like  the  primitive  cliurch,  thty  have 
hiH  to  encoujitcr  all  the  prejudices  of  the  learned  and  of  the  ignorant. 
As  thty  liave  never  been  aided  by  civil  power,  their  progreft  niuft  be 
attributed  to  fomc  other  caufe.  We  befecch  you  candidly  to  weigh  the 
evidence  exhibited  in  the  preceding;  woik,  and  conip  re  it  with  thjt  by 
which  you  Tuj  port  your  own  fentiment»;  and  may  tliv  Lord  help  y<m 
to  know  and  do  his  will. 

To  the  Baptlfts. 

BELOVro  BreTHKF.N  —  Unto  you  it  is  gi'jen,  in  tie  kth.ilf  of  Ch)iJl,Kot 
only  to  belic'oe  on  him,  but  al/o  to  fuffer  fir  his  fake.  From  the  days  of 
your  perfecuted  anceftor,  who  was  ohlrged  to  crols  the  Patucket,  to  en- 
joy among  favages  thofe  rights  of  tonfcieiice,  which  had  been  denied 
him  by  Chrilli.!)is,  yrur  hilioiy  exhibits  repeated  inflancet  of  cruel 
nioiUngs,  and  of  the  ft'oii'ng  r,f  y,ur  goods  and  fbnic  of  bonds  nnd  imprifon- 
ment.  The  American  revolution  has  meliorated  your  condition.  Truth 
nuift  prevail.  Its  progreis  will  naturally  be  more  rapid,  when  not  im- 
peded by  religious  eftab!ilhment$,  and  penal  laws. 

We  beleech  you,  brethren,  a-. pilgrims  and jir angers,  to  adorn  your  pro- 
fefiion,  by  a  holy,  humble  walk.  The  pro>jre(s  of  your  principles,  and 
incrcafe  of  your  churches  (under  God)  depends  not  lefs  upon  the  nn- 
blameablenefs  of  your  lives,  than  upon  the  purity  of  your  /cntiments. 
If  your  brethrin  hate  you,  and  cajl  you  out  fur  hit  name's  fale,  requite 
them  (jnly  with  kindnel's.  '  In  this  way  you  will  put  to  filence  the  igno- 
ranci  of  foolifh  Ken.  'I'hc  prcfeut  period  is  aufpicious;  (3  for  wifdom  to 
improve  it.  See  that  you  fall  not  out  by  the  way.  Finally,  brethren, 
•we  lefeich  you,  that  you  ivalL  v/orthy  of  the  ■Docatlon  ivheie'.vitb  you  are 
tailed  ;  'uiitb  all  Uiulintfs  and  mciln  f,  with  ling-fuffering,  f oi  hearing  one 
another  in  Itvt  ;  endeavouring  t»  hep  tie  unity  of  ti,t  Spirit  in  the  ionJ  <f 
ftaet. 


FINIS. 


r 

I 


1 


